Further intervenient petitions supporting the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution Bill were filed in the Supreme Court on Friday, asking the court to hold that the Bill was properly presented and can be passed without a referendum.
Sarath Manamendra, leader of the Nava Sihala Urumaya, is named in both reports. His petition asks for a determination that the Bill was placed before Parliament in accordance with the Constitution and needs no referendum, Ada Derana reported, citing its own reporter.
Two newsrooms, two counts
The two accounts differ on how many were filed. Ada Derana reported a single petition. Hiru News reported two, naming Manamendra alongside K. Sarath Lal Perera, chief secretary of a national organisation for safeguarding retirement entitlements, and giving both the same relief: that the Bill is lawfully before Parliament and passable without a referendum.
Neither report says when the court will take up the filings.
The shape of the case
Almost every filing reported since the Bill was tabled has sought to block it. Petitioners argue the changes engage the sovereignty of the people under Articles 3 and 4(c) of the Constitution, which would place the amendment beyond Parliament’s reach acting alone and require approval at a referendum under Article 83.
The Bill raises the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65, makes provision for the Chief Justice’s retirement date, and increases the number of Court of Appeal judges.
The supporting side is recent and still small. The first petition backing the Bill came on August 25 from an NPP parliamentarian, who set out his grounds two days later in an application to intervene against a Bar Association filing. Ranged against it are petitions from the BASL’s president and secretary, a separate Bar Association filing by two of its officers, the SLFP Women’s Wing and others.
No single running total has held across newsrooms. Ada Derana counted 13 challenges as of August 21, while Hiru News reported a far higher figure at the registry over the same period. The Bar Association has separately urged responsible scrutiny of the judiciary as the argument has sharpened, and the President has defended the amendment as a route to faster justice.
