Minister Explains Judicial Retirement Age Proposal

COLOMBO (News 1st); The Government's proposal to increase the retirement age of judges is part of a broader effort to improve the efficiency of Sri Lanka’s judicial system and address a backlog of approximately 1.1 million pending cases, Minister of Justice, Attorney-at-Law Harshana Nanayakkara, said.

Speaking on the proposed reforms at the media briefing to announce cabinet decisions, the Minister stressed that increasing the retirement age of judges is only one component of a wider strategy aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the judiciary.

“The judiciary must become more efficient, just like other systems. Increasing the retirement age of judges is only one aspect of improving efficiency. We are intervening in several other areas as well,” he said.

The Minister noted that one of the key priorities is resolving delays within the Government Analyst’s Department, which he identified as a major point where court cases become stalled. He added that issues within the Attorney General’s Department also require urgent attention.

In addition, the Ministry of Justice and the courts are currently engaged in recruiting staff as part of efforts to strengthen the legal system.

“All these measures are being taken because we have a system burdened with a backlog of 1.1 million cases,” he said.

Nanayakkara pointed out that Sri Lanka has significantly fewer judges compared to developed nations. According to him, developed countries generally have between 40 and 60 judges, or even more, for every one million people, while Sri Lanka has only around 20 judges per million.

“To be frank, the root cause of this crisis is that, over the past 10 to 15 years, there should have been proper forecasting and a corresponding increase in the number of judges. That did not happen, and as a result, we are now facing a massive accumulation of cases,” he stated.

The Minister clarified that the retirement age increase is not limited to judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. Through amendments to the Judicature Act, the Government plans to increase by two years the retirement age of District Judges, Magistrates, and all other judicial officers.

He explained that experienced and mature judicial officers are essential to the effective functioning of courts and that retaining their expertise would help accelerate the hearing and disposal of cases.

Nanayakkara further noted that the retirement age of judges has not been revised since 1978.

“As judges gain greater maturity and experience, the law itself develops. It also enables the judicial process to become more efficient. Based on these considerations, we are seeking an overall increase through this proposal,” he said.

The Minister emphasized that the proposal is not a recent development, noting that discussions on raising the retirement age of judges have been taking place within legal circles for years.

He recalled that the Bar Association had proposed increasing the retirement age of Court of Appeal judges and others as far back as 2016. He also noted that former Minister Rauff Hakeem had discussed a similar proposal before a Parliamentary Oversight Committee in 2015 and 2016.

“I believe this has been a matter regularly discussed within the profession since around 2017,” he said.

Nanayakkara confirmed that he had received observations from the Bar Association and that the Government had carefully considered concerns raised through both written submissions and public statements. He also acknowledged receiving representations from the Judicial Service Association and individual judges, adding that a similar communication may have been sent to the President.

According to the Minister, while concerns have been raised, only around 65 judges have formally expressed opposition to the proposal.

“However, it is around 65 judges who have taken a position on this matter, while the association itself represents 294 judges. There are also 94 High Court judges,” he said.

“Therefore, out of a total of 388 judges, around 65 have expressed opposition. Nevertheless, we have carefully considered the issues raised in their objections. We are not dismissing any concerns.”

Addressing criticism that the proposal could undermine judicial independence, Nanayakkara said opponents have not clearly explained how such an outcome would occur.

He argued that concerns might carry greater weight if the proposal were designed to benefit a specific individual or applied only to the Supreme Court, but noted that the changes are being proposed across the entire judiciary.