Saliya Peris: A Lawyer Out of His Depth on Judicial Tenure?
The Sri Lankan legal community is currently embroiled in one of its most consequential constitutional debates in recent memory. At the heart of the controversy is a government proposal to amend the Constitution to extend the retirement age of judges . The stated aim is to address a massive backlog of approximately 1.1 million pending cases and alleviate a shortage of judicial officers . However, the proposal has been met with fierce, near-unanimous opposition from the legal profession. Leading this charge is former Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) President, President’s Counsel Saliya Peris.
While Mr. Peris is a respected figure in certain legal circles , his staunch opposition to this constitutional amendment raises serious questions about his legal reasoning. In his arguments, he appears to be making a mockery of his own legal knowledge, opposing the measure with arguments that lack constitutional and legal substance. A closer examination reveals that his stance, and that of the broader legal fraternity he represents, is less about the rule of law and more about protecting the status quo and vested interests.
The Government's Rationale: A Matter of Efficiency
The government's position is clear and practical. The Sri Lankan judiciary is overwhelmed. With over a million cases pending, the justice system is creaking under its own weight . To address this, the government has proposed increasing the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67, Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65, and lower court judges from 60 to 62 .
This is not a radical or unprecedented idea. Many jurisdictions around the world have raised judicial retirement ages to keep experienced and capable judges on the bench longer, recognizing that modern life expectancies and the complexities of the law often benefit from seasoned expertise. The argument is simple: experienced judges are an asset; retaining them is a logical step to enhance judicial capacity and continuity while broader structural reforms are underway .
Saliya Peris’s Feeble Opposition
Mr. Peris and his allies have mounted a campaign against the amendment, but their arguments are remarkably weak when scrutinized.
1. The False Equivalence of a "Conflict of Interest"
One of Mr. Peris’s primary objections is that the amendment will create a "conflict of interest" if a petition is filed against it, as judges would be ruling on a matter that affects their own retirement age . This argument is constitutionally nonsensical.
The judiciary’s role is to interpret the law, not to legislate. If the amendment is passed by Parliament with the required two-thirds majority, it becomes the law of the land. Judges do not rule on laws because they personally benefit from them; they rule on their constitutionality. To suggest that the entire Supreme Court would be biased in a fundamental rights petition is to insult the integrity and professionalism of the very institution Mr. Peris claims to defend. It is a red herring designed to distract from the merits of the proposal.
2. Ignoring the Structural Problem
Mr. Peris has argued that extending the retirement age of Supreme Court and Appeal Court judges is pointless because the "backlog cases are pending in magistrate and district courts" . This is a disingenuous argument that ignores the interconnectedness of the judicial system. It is akin to saying a hospital should not hire more senior doctors because the emergency room is overcrowded.
A more efficient appellate court system can handle cases more quickly, which in turn reduces the burden on the lower courts by providing clearer precedents and faster finality of judgments. Furthermore, the government's plan is not limited to the superior courts; it explicitly includes an extension for lower court judges as well . Mr. Peris’s selective reading of the proposal to undermine it is a clear sign of a weak case.
3. A Hollow Call for "Consultation"
The most common refrain from Mr. Peris and the Bar Association is the demand for "broad consultation" . While consultation is generally a sound principle, its use here is a delaying tactic. The BASL, under Mr. Peris's leadership, has already made its position clear. Over 3,700 lawyers at a recent Special General Meeting voted to oppose the amendment, with Mr. Peris’s arguments featuring prominently .
What is there to consult about? The Bar has already decided to oppose the measure in principle. Any further "consultation" would simply be a means to stall the reform until the current Chief Justice, whose term is set to end in November, retires . This reveals the true motivation behind Mr. Peris’s opposition: it is not about process, but about preventing the extension of the Chief Justice’s tenure .
A History of Inconsistency
Interestingly, Mr. Peris has a history of taking principled stands on constitutional protections when it suits his narrative. In June 2026, he reiterated concerns over detention laws, arguing that "the protections afforded by the Constitution cannot change depending on the individual concerned" and must be applied equally .
This is a commendable principle. Yet, when it comes to the judiciary, he is arguing that a constitutional amendment that applies equally to all judges is somehow a corrupt plot to benefit one individual. The inconsistency is glaring. The principle of equality before the law that Mr. Peris champions in the context of detention should also apply to the retirement age of judges. If the change is a good policy for the judiciary as a whole, it should not be scuttled based on speculation about one person's tenure.
The Real Motive
The campaign against this amendment has been framed as a defense of "judicial independence." However, as many have pointed out, the real issue is not independence but control. The legal establishment, represented by figures like Mr. Peris, is resisting a reform that originated with the executive.
As a report on the issue notes, the debate is not one of "outright confrontation between Government and the legal profession," but of "deep institutional caution" . The legal fraternity, having enjoyed a certain sphere of influence and a relatively unchecked system, is wary of any change that it has not initiated itself. The opposition from the Judicial Service Association, which represents lower court judges, has been highlighted by Mr. Peris . However, this opposition appears to be motivated by concerns over stalled promotions, a self-interested argument that puts career progression above the broader need for judicial efficiency .
Saliya Peris’s opposition to the constitutional amendment to raise the retirement age of judges is not a noble stand for the rule of law; it is a desperate attempt to preserve the privileges of the legal establishment. His arguments—the bogus conflict of interest claim, the misrepresentation of the case backlog, and the demand for endless consultation—are legal sophistry designed to obscure the fact that his position lacks substantive merit.
The public has no interest in this internal turf war. They are waiting for justice that is delayed. By framing a straightforward administrative reform as a constitutional crisis, Mr. Peris is not upholding the dignity of the legal profession; he is making a mockery of it. His actions suggest a lawyer who is either unable or unwilling to understand the constitutional and legal principles at stake, and is instead choosing to manufacture controversy where none exists.