Seven petitions have now been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, as disagreement between the Government, Opposition and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) over a planned briefing for parliamentarians intensified yesterday.
Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne informed Parliament yesterday that he had received copies of four further petitions filed before the Supreme Court challenging the proposed Amendment, in addition to copies of three petitions received on Wednesday.
The Speaker announced the latest petitions at the commencement of yesterday’s parliamentary sitting.
The development adds to the legal and political scrutiny of the proposed constitutional amendment, which seeks, among other changes, to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 years and Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65 years.
The BASL, meanwhile, requested the postponement of its proposed briefing for MPs on the extension of judges’ retirement ages, citing the Government’s position in Parliament and the absence of bipartisan consensus over the meeting.
In a letter dated 19 August to Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya said the association had hoped the briefing would have bipartisan participation and provide MPs an opportunity to better understand its concerns over the proposed constitutional amendment.
‘However, in light of the proceedings in Parliament…and the position of the Government expressed threat, there appears to be no consensus on the same, nor interest presently by the Government to provide this opportunity to its Members of Parliament,’ the letter said.
The BASL said that although the Opposition had already expressed strong objections to the proposed amendment, the briefing would have been particularly useful for Government MPs to objectively consider their approach to the issue.
It therefore requested that the briefing be postponed until bipartisan participation could be assured.
The BASL also thanked Premadasa for proposing and following up on the briefing, describing the initiative as a progressive step in the constitutional debate.
The decision followed criticism from Government MPs over the proposed briefing and questions over how the invitation to parliamentarians had been characterised.
National People’s Power (NPP) MP Lakmali Hemachandra disputed claims that the proposed BASL briefing had been intended for all MPs.
‘This is not true. The Opposition Leader has no powers to summon all MPs to any meeting,’ Hemachandra said.
She said the Opposition Leader could organise a meeting to brief Opposition MPs, but describing its audience as ‘all MPs’ was incorrect.
Hemachandra said the BASL had previously taken the position that it was unwilling to engage only with the Opposition, although it was entitled to change that position and meet the Opposition Leader and Opposition MPs.
However, she argued that portraying such a meeting as a bipartisan engagement would be misleading.
‘BASL should know parliamentary procedure enough to understand they are not invited to a bipartisan engagement,’ she said.
Hemachandra also questioned whether any lobby group should be given an opportunity to address the entire Parliament while it was in session, arguing that such access was not available to the general public.
‘The public has the right to draw the attention of Members of Parliament towards issues they feel are of importance. Yet, seeking the audience of the whole of Parliament on a day Parliament is in session seems to signal a sense of entitlement not enjoyed by the general public,’ she said.
She added that MPs could be contacted individually through letters, telephone calls and public days, as other groups and individuals do.
Premadasa had earlier told Parliament that BASL representatives were expected to visit Parliament yesterday to brief MPs on the proposed 22nd Amendment and concerns relating to vacancies in the superior courts.
He said he initially wrote to the BASL President on 8 June requesting a briefing for Opposition MPs and made a further request on 30 July for the briefing to be extended to all parliamentarians. The Speaker had also been informed in writing.
Premadasa said the BASL subsequently confirmed that its representatives would be available for the briefing. His explanation followed Leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake stating that a procedural error in organising the meeting had been identified.
The legal challenges come as the Government has signalled that it is prepared to take the proposed Amendment to a referendum if the Supreme Court determines that approval by the people is required in addition to a two-thirds parliamentary majority.
Health and Mass Media Minister Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa said the Government would proceed in accordance with the Supreme Court determination, which he expected by late September or October.
‘If a two-thirds majority in Parliament is required, we are prepared to proceed accordingly, and if a referendum is required, we are prepared for that as well, based on the Supreme Court’s decision,’ Dr. Jayatissa said.
The proposal to extend the retirement age of superior court judges by two years also predates the current Government’s 22nd Amendment initiative.
The measure was previously proposed when Ranil Wickremesinghe was President through a Private Member’s proposal by MP Faiszer Musthapha, who is now in Opposition. Musthapha proposed raising the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 years and Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65 years.
The proposal subsequently appeared in Parliament’s Order Book issued on 5 December 2025 before the Government incorporated the retirement-age changes into the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill.