BASL seeks full Supreme Court bench to hear challenge against proposed 22nd Amendment

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has filed a motion before the Supreme Court seeking to have its challenge against the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution heard by a full bench of the Court.

The association has cited what it describes as an unavoidable conflict of interest, arguing that every sitting Supreme Court judge has a direct interest in the outcome of the proposed constitutional amendment.

Invoking Section 49(3) of the Judicature Act and established judicial practice, the petitioners contend that convening the full court is the only lawful and transparent way to proceed with the matter.

The BASL has requested that the motion be taken up in open court for support on August 31, September 1, or September 2, 2026. Formal notice of the application has already been acknowledged by the Attorney-General’s Department.

Challenge to proposed constitutional changes

The latest application follows the primary petition filed by the BASL on August 24, challenging the fundamental legality of the proposed constitutional amendment.

The association has warned that the proposed legislation could pose a serious threat to judicial independence and the sovereignty of the people protected under Article 3 of the Constitution.

The petition specifically challenges two key provisions of the proposed amendment.

Clause 2 seeks to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67, while raising the retirement age of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65. It also proposes to limit the tenure of the Chief Justice to six years.

Clause 3 proposes increasing the number of judges on the Court of Appeal from 19 to 24.

Concerns over judicial independence

The BASL has cautioned against what it describes as the risks of abusive constitutionalism and potential court capture.

According to the petitioners, extending the tenure of incumbent judges by two years would provide them with a direct financial benefit, thereby creating an acute perception of bias in proceedings concerning the proposed amendment.

The August 24 petition also raises concerns that the proposed changes bypass mandatory appointment mechanisms involving the Constitutional Council and could raise issues under the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023.

The association further argues that the proposed constitutional changes have been introduced without adequate public consultation or a mandate from the electorate.

BASL seeks referendum on judicial independence

The BASL maintains that any constitutional measure that undermines judicial independence would directly affect the sovereignty of the people protected under Article 3.

On that basis, the association argues that the proposed amendment cannot become law without being approved by the people at a national referendum.