The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has said the judiciary must remain open to legitimate scrutiny, while warning that personal attacks built on unsubstantiated allegations damage public confidence in the administration of justice.
The statement, reported by both the Daily Mirror and Hiru News, restates the association’s opposition to the proposed 22nd Amendment and its challenge to the Bill’s constitutionality before the Supreme Court.
The position it staked out
The BASL’s central formulation is that judicial independence “should not be regarded as a shield against legitimate scrutiny or accountability” — it exists, the association said, as a safeguard for the people, ensuring disputes are decided impartially and that individual rights, the rule of law and the constitutional order are protected.
Judicial judgments, judicial conduct and the administration of justice may all be subjected to fair, informed and responsible criticism, it said. Where credible allegations arise against any member of the judiciary, including the Chief Justice, they should be examined objectively through the appropriate constitutional and parliamentary processes.
At the same time it urged all parties to act responsibly when making allegations against individual judges and lawyers, warning that reckless personal attacks undermine the integrity of the justice system.
Between two opposite demands
The statement lands squarely between two positions taken this week over the same set of parliamentary remarks about Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena.
The National Trade Union and Civil Front asked the Bribery Commission to investigate the allegations, which concern the Chief Justice’s assets and delays in recovering compensation over the X-Press Pearl disaster. Lawyers for Public Mandate argued the opposite — that the remarks breached Standing Order 82 and should never have been aired in the House at all.
The BASL accepts neither framing wholesale: the claims may be examined, but only through established procedure. It said it had itself been the target of unfounded attacks on social media.
The tenure question
Both outlets reported the association’s view that the Chief Justice would be the first Supreme Court judge to benefit if the amendment becomes law, and that a widespread belief has taken hold that the Bill is being rushed to extend his tenure, which would otherwise end on December 1, 2026.
That is the tension running through the intervention: the BASL is at once opposing an amendment that would extend the Chief Justice’s term and defending him against allegations aired in Parliament. Its two most senior office-bearers petitioned the Supreme Court on August 24 seeking a ruling that the Bill requires a referendum; an NPP MP has since asked the court to dismiss a separate Bar Association challenge.
The two reports date the statement differently — the Daily Mirror said it was issued on Wednesday, Hiru News on Thursday. Neither reported a response from the government, the Judicial Service Commission or the Chief Justice, or when the Supreme Court will take up the petitions.
