The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has filed a motion in the Supreme Court asking that its challenge to the proposed 22nd Amendment be heard by a full bench of the court, escalating a request it had previously made informally to the Chief Justice.
The association cites what it calls an unavoidable conflict of interest, arguing that every sitting Supreme Court judge has a direct interest in the outcome of the amendment, Hiru News reported. 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.
The BASL has asked for the motion to be taken up in open court for support on 31 August, 1 September or 2 September. Formal notice of the application has been acknowledged by the Attorney-General’s Department.
What has changed since Monday
The substance of the demand is not new. When the association’s president and secretary filed their Special Determination petition on 24 August, they separately asked the Chief Justice to constitute a full bench, citing the same conflict of interest.
What is new is the form. That was a request addressed to the Chief Justice; this is a motion filed in court, resting on a statutory provision, with named dates for support and notice served on the Attorney-General. The association has moved the question from the administrative side of the court to its judicial side, where it must be ruled on rather than simply considered.
The two clauses at issue
The petition challenges two provisions. Clause 2 would raise the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and that of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65, while limiting the Chief Justice’s tenure to six years. Clause 3 would increase the number of Court of Appeal judges from 19 to 24.
The BASL argues that extending the tenure of incumbent judges by two years confers a direct financial benefit on them, creating what it calls an acute perception of bias in any proceedings concerning the amendment. It warns of the risks of “abusive constitutionalism” and potential court capture.
Its 24 August petition also argued that the changes bypass mandatory appointment mechanisms involving the Constitutional Council and could raise issues under the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023, and that the amendment was introduced without adequate public consultation or an electoral mandate.
The association maintains that because any measure undermining judicial independence affects the sovereignty of the people protected under Article 3, the amendment cannot become law without approval at a referendum.
No other verified Sri Lankan newsroom had published its own report of the full-bench motion as of Saturday evening.
