Payment of income tax is made mandatory for all judicial officers, including judges.

The Supreme Court has ruled that all judicial officers, including judges in Sri Lanka, are legally bound to pay income tax. This order was issued after a lengthy consideration of the appeal petitions filed by several associations representing judicial officers.

With this decision, all appeals filed by associations representing High Court, District, Additional District, Magistrate, and Labour Tribunal Chairmen have been rejected.

The relevant petitioners had previously filed three writ petitions before the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal had dismissed those petitions on November 2, 2023. This new conclusion by the Supreme Court has been given after re-examining the appeals filed against that decision of the Court of Appeal.

The main legal issues raised in this case were whether judges are subject to tax under the Inland Revenue Act No. 24 of 2017, and whether the deduction of such taxes from their salaries is legal. The petitioner associations argued that treating them as ordinary employees for tax purposes and deducting taxes from their salaries during their tenure harms judicial independence, which is guaranteed by the constitution, as well as their right to non-reduction of salary. Therefore, they also requested a refund of the taxes already collected.

However, the respondent party pointed out that this is a common tax system that fairly affects all citizens, and that Advance Personal Income Tax (APIT) is merely a pre-tax collection mechanism. The Supreme Court confirmed these points made by the respondents, completely rejected the petitioners' requests, and Justice Shiran Gunaratne also expressed his agreement with this final conclusion regarding tax imposition.

Justice Janak de Silva, who announced the main judgment in the case, stated that applying the Inland Revenue Act to judicial officers does not constitute a violation of the Constitution. The court pointed out that although judicial independence is a fundamental constitutional principle, judges must also be subject to tax laws imposed generally on the entire society without specifically targeting judges. Furthermore, the judge clarified that even if the Ministry Secretary pays salaries or deducts Advance Personal Income Tax solely for the purpose of tax collection, it does not create an employer-employee relationship between judicial officers and the relevant parties.