Parliament passed the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution on Friday night by 158 votes to 63, clearing the two-thirds majority it required, and Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne endorsed it within two hours of the final vote.

The Second Reading was approved by 158 votes to 63 with no abstentions, NewsFirst reported, following a two-day debate. Parliament then approved the Third Reading by the same margin at about 7.49 p.m., the Daily Mirror reported.

The companion Judicature (Amendment) Bill was approved by a two-thirds majority with 158 MPs in favour and 62 against — one fewer opposing vote than on the amendment itself. Neither outlet explains the difference.

Speaker Dr Jagath Wickramaratne endorsed the 22nd Amendment the same evening, according to a statement from the Parliament Media Unit — the certification step that brings a constitutional amendment into force.

He endorsed his certificate on both bills, Hiru News reported, which the Daily Mirror’s account does not mention. The two accordingly came into operation as the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution and the Judicature (Amendment) Act, No. 23 of 2026 — the statutory identity of the companion bill, which no other outlet has reported.

The amendment extends the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges by two years. The Judicature (Amendment) Bill does the same for judges of the other courts. The Supreme Court had found the bill’s provisions constitutional and determined that the amendment does not require a referendum.

How the numbers broke

Chief Government Whip Nalinda Jayatissa said before the vote that a few Opposition MPs would vote in favour. He said the division was within the Opposition, and rejected claims of any split inside the ruling party.

The Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) voted against. MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam told the House his party could have supported the amendment had it come as part of a new Constitution rather than as a standalone change.

Easier to pass than to undo

Jayatissa, who is also Health and Media Minister, used the debate to argue that Opposition pledges to reverse the amendment are “completely unconstitutional” and could not simply be carried out, Hiru News reported on Saturday.

An Opposition government seeking to repeal it would need a two-thirds majority in Parliament and a referendum, he said — a higher bar than the two-thirds the government itself cleared, because the Supreme Court had determined that passing the amendment required no referendum.

He pressed the Opposition on what repeal would mean in practice: cutting the retirement age of judges back by two years, reducing the number of Court of Appeal judges, and bringing High Court judges down from 120 to 110. Once those provisions are law, he argued, changing them again would itself trigger the referendum requirement.

Jayatissa said the amendments were introduced to reduce delays in the courts and to retain the expertise of experienced judges, and that the process had been carried out constitutionally and fairly. No other verified newsroom we could reach had filed its own account of this exchange.

The government’s case, made from the floor

Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya used the opening day of debate to argue the bill should be judged as one piece of a broader programme rather than on its own, the Daily Mirror reported.

Justice must be accessible to all without discrimination, she told the House, and establishing the rule of law and ensuring equal access to justice remain among the government’s key commitments. Improving access to justice could not be achieved through a single constitutional amendment, or by reforming one institution alone.

She listed what the government says it has already done: steps over the past two years to strengthen independent investigations and improve the capacity of the Police and the Criminal Investigation Department to investigate fairly and impartially, and measures to improve impartiality in recruitment, promotions and appointments. On efficiency, she cited filling vacancies, increasing opportunities for hearings, directing resources towards courts with heavy caseloads, introducing technological support and providing additional staff.

The Government Analyst’s Department — whose longstanding vacancies have contributed to investigative delays — is also being strengthened, she said.

Courts of Appeal outside Colombo

The Prime Minister said the amendment would allow Courts of Appeal to be established in provinces where necessary, improving access to appellate justice for people outside Colombo.

She argued that delays in justice had fallen on ordinary citizens while benefiting an elite, with prolonged investigations and proceedings feeding a cycle in which accountability weakened each time governments changed.

”Not aimed at any particular judge”

Responding to the central criticism of the bill — that raising the retirement age is designed to keep specific judges in place — Amarasuriya said the increase applies across the board and is not aimed at any particular judge or court.

She cited two international comparisons: the United Kingdom raised its judicial retirement age from 70 to 75 in 2021, and Hong Kong raised its from 65 to 70 in 2019.

She also rejected the argument that the amendment hands the Executive special powers over the Judiciary or alters the balance of power between the institutions of government.

The Opposition has made the opposite case outside the chamber, where the Samagi Jana Balawegaya protested at Polduwa Junction as the debate opened and the Bar Association asked parties to release MPs for a conscience vote.

An aside on the railway strike

Closing on a different note, the Prime Minister said growing public confidence in the possibility of building stronger institutions was itself a sign of change, and pointed to the response of young people after the recent railway strike — including those who bought additional tickets once services resumed — as a small but meaningful indication of a growing sense of responsibility towards public institutions.

Not reported

No outlet has published a division list, so it is not known which Opposition MPs crossed over, nor which members account for the one-vote difference between the 63 who opposed the amendment and the 62 who opposed the Judicature Bill. Neither outlet gives the total number of MPs present or absent.

The Daily Mirror’s account of the Prime Minister’s speech does not say which provinces might receive Courts of Appeal first, or what the amendment’s provincial provision would cost. No date has been reported for when the extended retirement ages take effect, or which sitting judges are affected first.

Sources