By Ceylon Signal 
COLOMBO — The Dinana Dakuna Collective today submitted a petition to the Supreme Court urging the judiciary to rule that key provisions of the proposed Twenty‑Second Amendment to the Constitution are unconstitutional and cannot be enacted without approval at a national referendum.
The petition, filed under Article 121 of the Constitution, argues that Clause 2 of the Bill—extending the retirement ages of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges and introducing a tenure cap for the Chief Justice—directly infringes the sovereignty of the people and undermines judicial independence.
The petitioner, Attorney‑at‑Law Shiral Lakthilaka, states that the amendment “alters and repeals the existing constitutional framework governing tenure and retirement under Article 107(5)” and is selectively designed to benefit sitting judges. According to the filing, such selective extension amounts to colorable legislation and violates the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.
Key Constitutional Violations Alleged
The petition sets out several grounds on which the amendment is said to be inconsistent with the Constitution:
Alienation of judicial power: The petition argues that allowing the executive to extend or refuse to extend judicial tenure introduces political discretion into the composition of the judiciary, violating Article 3 read with Article 4(c).
Threat to judicial independence: Citing the Supreme Court’s determination in Uthula Suranga Ranaweera v. Attorney General, the petitioner asserts that altering the retirement age of incumbent judges “directly impinges on the independence of the judiciary.”
Violation of equal protection: The selective extension of retirement age and the unique tenure cap imposed on the Chief Justice are described as arbitrary and discriminatory, contrary to Article 12(1).
Separation of powers concerns: The petition claims the amendment gives the executive effective control over judicial tenure, blurring the constitutional boundary between branches of government.
Referendum Required, Petitioner Says
The petition stresses that any measure affecting the institutional integrity of the judiciary constitutes an alteration of the constitutional architecture and therefore requires approval by the people at a referendum under Article 83.
It further notes that the Supreme Court, under the doctrine of necessity, is the sole authority empowered to determine the constitutionality of the Bill.
Relief Sought
The Dinana Dakuna Collective requests the Court to:
Declare Clause 2 inconsistent with Articles 3, 4(c), and 12(1);
Rule that the Bill must be passed by a two‑thirds majority in Parliament and approved at a referendum;
Grant any further relief deemed appropriate.