The Supreme Court on Wednesday concluded its consideration of the petitions filed against the Government’s proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, closing two days of argument on the most heavily challenged constitutional amendment in Sri Lanka’s recent history.
Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena announced that the court’s determination on the Bill’s constitutionality will be communicated confidentially to the Speaker of Parliament. The bench directed all parties to file written submissions before 3.00 p.m. on Thursday.
The five-judge bench comprised the Chief Justice and Justices Achala Wengappuli, Arjuna Obeyesekere, Sampath Abeykoon and Gihan Kulatunga. A total of 67 petitions were filed after the Government presented the Bill to Parliament on 18 August, following its publication in the Gazette.
Appearing for the Attorney General, Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne submitted that the Government had brought forward both the 22nd Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill with the objective of expanding and streamlining the country’s judicial system.
Counsel for the petitioners pressed the opposite case. President’s Counsel Srinath Perera argued that the amendment’s provisions would directly or indirectly affect members of the judiciary, and that it would be inappropriate for judges to adjudicate on matters that could affect them personally. President’s Counsel Saliya Peiris submitted that constitutional reform should serve both present and future generations, and should not be driven by popular sentiment or temporary political considerations. Attorneys-at-Law Suren Fernando and Lakshan Dias also made submissions.
The first day of hearings, on Tuesday, ran until 10.30 p.m. At the start of those proceedings, President’s Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran, appearing for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, asked that the petitions be heard before a full bench of all sitting Supreme Court judges. The bench rejected that request and continued with the originally appointed panel.
The president of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, Steven Thiru, observed the day’s proceedings in person and afterwards raised concerns about the composition of the bench and the refusal of an oral right of reply to petitioners’ counsel. The association said it would prepare a report.
Neither newsroom reported when the determination is due to reach the Speaker.
Update (Thursday): what the Bill changes, and who is challenging it
Written submissions were due before 3.00 p.m. on Thursday, Ada Derana and Hiru News reported, with the bench having directed parties to file them only “if any exist”.
Later filings set out the substance of the amendment for the first time. The proposed 22nd Amendment seeks to raise the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67, and that of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65.
The petitions were filed by individuals and organisations including the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, the Samagi Jana Balawegaya and Sarvajana Balaya. The petitioners argue that the amendment is unconstitutional and that certain of its provisions would require approval by a two-thirds majority in Parliament as well as endorsement at a referendum — the threshold that determines whether the Government can enact the change on its own parliamentary strength.
The court’s confidential determination on the Bill’s constitutionality is expected to reach the Speaker in accordance with constitutional procedure. No date has been given.
Update (Thursday evening): the Bar Association refuses to file, and most petitioners follow
The 3.00 p.m. deadline passed with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and several other petitioner parties formally telling the Supreme Court, by motion, that they would not be filing written submissions at all.
The BASL motion — filed in S.C. (S.D.) No. 47/2026 by association president Rajeev Amarasuriya and secretary Nalin De Silva against the Attorney General — sets out two objections.
The first is the refusal to empanel a Full Court. Petitioners had asked before the hearing began for all sitting Supreme Court judges to hear the matter, arguing that potential conflicts of interest, or the appearance of them, touched every judge including the Chief Justice, and that nominating the entire bench would remove any perception that particular judges had been selected. Counsel for most other petitioners supported the request. The bench rejected it without assigning reasons.
The second is the denial of an oral right of reply. After the Solicitor General concluded the State’s submissions at around 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, counsel for the petitioners asked to respond orally and were refused, with the court directing that further submissions be made in writing instead. The association says this prevented petitioners from answering the State’s arguments directly, and from responding orally to matters the judges themselves had raised. Having been denied that opportunity, it told the court, it would not tender post-hearing written submissions.
The Daily Mirror reported that most of the other petitioners were following the BASL’s lead and would also decline to file. Its account adds that no policy document underlying the Bill had been made available to the petitioners, and that the hearing resumed at 10.00 a.m. on Wednesday after the first day ran to 10.30 p.m.
The refusal narrows what is before the bench as it prepares its determination: on a Bill challenged by a record 67 petitions, the court will now rule largely without written argument from the petitioners who brought them. The objections track those raised publicly by the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, whose president observed the proceedings and said the association would prepare a report.
Ada Derana reported that the determination goes confidentially to the President and the Speaker. No date has been given, and no outlet has reported a response from the Attorney General’s Department or the court.
