A section of the Judges' Association met and opposed the extension of the retirement age.

A heated situation has arisen within the judiciary due to the government's proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of judges in the country. Amidst the crisis created in the judicial sector regarding this structural change, a special general meeting convened by the Judicial Service Association was held on July 11.

All judges who participated in the meeting unanimously decided that the government's proposal to raise the retirement age limit should be completely opposed.

However, a group of judges who opposed this process point out that only 65 judges participated in this special general meeting, which is less than one-third of the association's total membership. Despite such criticisms regarding the quorum and legality of the meeting, the 65 members present unanimously decided to reject the proposed constitutional amendment.

It is reported that a highly controversial and uneasy atmosphere had been developing within the judiciary even before this special meeting was held. Especially due to serious questions raised about the methodology by which this meeting was convened and its statutory approval, Mr. Pasan Amaraseena, the President of the Judicial Service Association, resigned from his post. The resigning president had emphasized that holding meetings without adequate participation of the association's members and attempting to change decisions taken by the executive committee was illegal. However, despite these objections, a group of executive committee members, including the association's secretary, Judge Suranga Munasinghe, organized and held the meeting.

It appears that the current government, led by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, is making a strong effort to introduce this constitutional amendment. However, some legal scholars and experts point out that the official policy statement of the National People's Power (NPP/JVP) did not include any mention or policy regarding the extension of judges' retirement age. Meanwhile, serious allegations are also being raised that various parties exerted pressure and obstructions to prevent members of the Judicial Service Association from attending this special meeting. Critics say that exerting pressure on such high-ranking officials involved in administering justice in a democratic country paints a dangerous picture for the future of the rule of law.

Looking at the legal nature of the proposed constitutional amendment, it is clear that interpreting it merely as an extension of the current Chief Justice's term of office is legally incorrect. Since this bill proposes to extend the retirement age limit of all judges serving in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal by two years, it is a general law and by no means a "personal service extension" targeting any specific individual.

Nevertheless, some critics and parties point out that this is a "personal operation" with a narrow political agenda, launched under the guise of structural reform, to keep the current Chief Justice in office. The sudden emergence of this amendment without any public consultation or broad discussion, especially at a time when the Chief Justice's term is nearing its end, has been the main reason for such suspicions. However, the government's official stance or final decision regarding this controversial constitutional amendment proposal has not yet been made public.