Dr. Murali Vallipuranathan
As Parliament moves to table the 22nd Constitutional Amendment and Judicature (Amendment) Bills to extend the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges by two years, the public debate has devolved into familiar partisan theater. As a medical demographer, I view this proposed reform not through a narrow political lens, but as a vital demographic, economic, and institutional necessity. Extending retirement ages should not stop at the judiciary; it must urgently encompass medical specialists, university academics, and other specialized professionals whose expertise Sri Lanka cannot afford to discard prematurely.
The Global Standard: Sri Lanka Is the Outlier
Across comparable Commonwealth and international jurisdictions, mandatory retirement ages recognize both modern human longevity and the irreplaceable value of accumulated jurisprudential wisdom:
United Kingdom: Mandatory retirement age for judges was restored to 70 (and up to 75 for select judicial roles).
Australia and New Zealand: Superior court judges serve until age 70.
Canada: Superior court judges retire at 75.
United States: Federal judges hold lifetime tenure during good behavior.
India: Supreme Court judges retire at 65, with sustained high-level policy advocacy to raise the threshold to 67 or 70.
Sri Lanka’s practice of forcing top appellate judges into retirement at 63 and 65 cuts short careers at the very pinnacle of judicial maturity, creating avoidable institutional instability.
1.13 Million Reasons for Reform: The Backlog Crisis
The judicial system groans under a staggering burden. Over 1.13 million cases remain pending across the island’s court hierarchy, including more than 5,700 cases before the Supreme Court and nearly 4,600 before the Court of Appeal.
In a country where “justice delayed is justice denied” is an everyday reality, shedding seasoned judges every few months exacerbates delays and stalls court benches. Retaining senior judicial talent guarantees procedural continuity and directly addresses the systemic logjam denying citizens timely justice.
Demographic Realities and Economic Dependency
Sri Lanka possesses one of the fastest-aging demographic profiles in South Asia. Collapsing fertility rates paired with expanded life expectancies mean our old-age economic dependency ratio is climbing rapidly.
From an epidemiological and demographic standpoint, retiring specialized minds in their early 60s is economically irrational. It drains public sector pension schemes while stripping the state of productive human capital. Aligning retirement ages with demographic realities across the judiciary, public health, and academia is essential to sustain national productivity.
The Flawed Logic of the Opposition
The resistance manufactured by the opposition relies on political anxiety rather than policy merit:
Fear of Accountability: The panic among political factions suggests a deeper apprehension: a strengthened, efficient judiciary with unbroken continuity will expedite high-profile corruption, financial crime, and criminal trials, ensuring wrongdoers and their collaborators face swift legal accountability.
Shielding Behind Religious Authority: Opponents expose a striking poverty of ideas by dragging the venerable Mahanayakas into administrative and constitutional policy. Sacralizing secular state reforms without advancing a single empirical argument is a disservice to both governance and religious institutions.
The Disappointing Posture of the Bar: The opposition mounted by segments of the legal fraternity highlights narrow sectional interests over public welfare. Were the retirement ages of medical consultants or senior university professors extended, their respective professional bodies would welcome the retention of scarce national expertise. The legal profession should be championing swift justice for litigants, not protecting case delays.
Sri Lanka cannot allow partisan obstruction to derail vital institutional modernization. Passing the judicial service extension bill is an urgent, rational first step—and it should pave the way for a comprehensive overhaul of retirement policies across all vital professional sectors.
*Dr. Murali Vallipuranathan is a Consultant Community Physician and a medical demographer with a postgraduate qualification in demography. He is also a visiting lecturer at the Universities of Jaffna, Peradeniya, and Colombo, a Senior Specialist attached to the Ministry of Health, and a Council Member of the Sri Lanka Medical Association. The views expressed in this article are offered in a spirit of professional and social responsibility and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of any affiliated institution.
SJ / August 20, 2026
The real issue is whether the government took this step in considertion of its merits and benefit to the judicial system.
The shoddy manner in which the powers that be have set about the matter, ignoring partners and due procedure, suggests otherwise.
/
leelagemalli / August 21, 2026
Mr SJ,
You may be right. Two senior lawyers who appeared on Hiru TV yesterday said they were present at the so-called discussion with the President on this matter the day before. According to their account, however, it was not a discussion at all, but rather a one-way speech delivered by the President himself, apparently to demonstrate that he had responded to the request made by the Lawyers’ Association. They said the President did not give anyone in the audience an opportunity to openly discuss the matter. Senior Lawyer Srianath Perera, with more than 50 years of experience in his profession, was particularly clear that it was not a discussion. He also observed that the President appeared nervous about leaving the venue, despite his speech giving the impression that he had offered the Lawyers’ Association an opportunity to engage. This raises a serious question: is this what the “system change” promised to the people is supposed to look like?
merely another lorry-load of promises—and the public now has every right to expect that promise to be reflected in action.
/
Roxie de Abrew / August 21, 2026
Dear Leela-ge-malli,
You are accurate in your assessment of the current beard-bearing leaders (except, of course, the PM).
They came to power with many truckloads of ‘system change’.
The beard-bearing gentry is exactly the same as that which manifested in 1971 & 1987.
Kangaroo courts, rubber tyre pyres in the middle of the road- that’s where we are heading.
I cry for our Nation; I cry for our fellow voters who sent the beard-bearing gentry to the halls of power. I cry for the lost Aragalaya..
/
Roxie de Abrew / August 21, 2026
Not only in this matter but in all matters of governance & accountability, the wobbly beard-bearing leadership that promised a ‘system-change’ leading to a ‘prosperous country & beautiful lives’, has been indecisive.
The Nation has been firmly pushed back to the GR era. If not for the continuation of the saviour RW’s fiscal & monetary policies, there would have been many walks of the people towards symbols of power.
/
Naman / August 23, 2026
“ Over 1.13 million cases remain pending across the island’s court hierarchy,”
The reasons for the delays in getting justice can be many other than the early retirements of Judges. These reasons needs to be looked into by appropriate authorities.
Whatever said the move to extend the retirement age for Judges is appropriate and should be welcomed by the public
/