The 22nd Constitutional Amendment Draft Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill are set to be presented before Parliament today (18), with the Opposition already preparing to contest both pieces of legislation at their first reading.

Minister of Justice and National Integration Harshana Nanayakkara is expected to table the Bills at the commencement of the main business of Parliament.

What the bills propose

The 22nd Amendment, if passed, would raise the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67, while extending the retirement age of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65.

The Judicial Organisation (Amendment) Bill, would raise the retirement age of judges serving in the High Courts, District Courts and Magistrates’ Courts to 62, should it be enacted.

Legal process and timeline

Under standard parliamentary procedure, a Bill must be presented for its first reading one week after its Gazette notification is issued, after which a further one-week window opens for it to be challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in turn, is required to communicate its determination to the Speaker of Parliament within a period of between three and 21 days of considering any petitions filed against the legislation.

Opposition to challenge

The Opposition, led by the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), has resolved to object to both Bills when they are presented for their first reading today, a decision reportedly reached during an Opposition parliamentary group meeting held yesterday (17) evening.

Plans have also been proposed to file petitions challenging the two Bills before the Supreme Court, with a request that a full bench comprising all thirteen Supreme Court judges be appointed to hear the matter.

The High Court trial-at-bar hearing the Easter Sunday terror attack case has ordered the defence to begin presenting evidence from today (17), following the conclusion of the prosecution’s case against all 24 accused.

The three judge bench, comprising Judge Nawaratne Marasinghe (President) along with Judges Sujeewa Nissanka and Ramanathan Kannan, determined that sufficient grounds existed to call evidence from every accused in the case.

Before ordering the defence to proceed, the bench explained the rights entitled to each of the accused and directed them to state their individual positions.

Of the 24 accused, the sixth, Mohamed Rizwan, informed the court that he would not be giving evidence and intended to remain silent.

The remaining accused indicated they would either give evidence from the dock, make a statement from the dock, or present external evidence in their defence.

The prosecution’s case, built over 547 days of evidence presented across a five year period, drew on testimony from approximately 1,500 witnesses in relation to 23,270 indictments filed against the 24 accused.

Prosecutors also tendered 2,076 court exhibits, including documents, bomb making material and other evidence gathered through witness testimony.

Ten confessions made by the accused before a magistrate and under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) were presented during the trial, though the court ruled the confession given by accused Mohamed Firdauz inadmissible after determining it had not been made voluntarily.

The remaining confessions were found to have been given voluntarily and were permitted to be presented as evidence.

The accused stand charged in connection with the attacks carried out by Zahran Hashim and his terrorist cell, which killed around 268 people and injured over 500 others when churches and tourist hotels were targeted on Easter Sunday in 2019.

The High Commissioner of India to Sri Lanka, Santosh Jha, accompanied by Dr. Rambabu C., Counsellor (Political) & Head of Chancery, met with representatives of Bahujana Balaya recently in a discussion that lasted more than three hours, underscoring the importance both sides placed on open and meaningful dialogue.

According to the Bahujana Balaya, far from being a ceremonial courtesy call, the meeting reflected India’s continued engagement with a broad spectrum of political and social stakeholders in Sri Lanka, including emerging nationalist movements. The talks provided an opportunity to exchange perspectives on issues of mutual importance.

Issuing a statement, the Bahujana Balaya said the conversation covered Sri Lanka–India relations and trade cooperation, regional security and the 13th Amendment, community relations between the North and South, and India’s system of governance, democratic institutions, and guiding principles of diplomacy.

The Bahujana Balaya stressed that the meeting was not used to criticize the Sri Lankan Government or President, but to focus on matters of national importance.

“In diplomacy, the nation must always come first,” the group noted, stressing that constructive dialogue builds trust and long‑term cooperation.

As a token of appreciation, Bahujana Balaya presented the High Commissioner with a replica of the Naga Raksha mask, one of Sri Lanka’s most iconic cultural symbols. The mask embodies protection, wisdom, vigilance, and the triumph of truth over evil, with its cobra hood signifying divine knowledge and its striking eyes believed to ward off the “evil eye.”

The Bahujana Balaya delegation included Chairman Milinda Rajapaksha, General Secretary Iranga Mendis, National Organiser Piyal Dharshana Guruge, Media Secretary Anjana Udara, Deputy Chairwoman Kumudini Bandara, and Executive Committee Member Sonala Gunawardene.

The Bahujana Balaya expressed appreciation for the openness of Indian High Commissioner Santosh Jha and Dr. Rambabu C., noting that diplomacy is strengthened through mutual respect, understanding, and continuous dialogue.

The group said constructive engagement between India and Sri Lanka’s national stakeholders will remain vital for promoting peace, stability, and shared prosperity.

Tamils in the north have refused to sign documents to allow the legal takeover of their land for the expansion of the Palali Airport without first knowing the amount of compensation they would get.

A total of 660 acres of private land was acquired by a gazette issued in 1986.

The owners vacated the land during the war and stayed with their relatives or friends, but continued to agitate demanding a return of the land.

Following the end of the war, the Valikamam North divisional secretariat started a programme to grant compensation for the land acquired by the state.

A total of 538 owners handed over ownership documents to the DS, with 445 agreeing to accept compensation, while 48 others remain undecided.

Another 45 insisted they want their land back, while 105 persons are listed although not having documents prove ownership.

DS Maradalingam Pradeepan chaired a meeting in the first week of this month with the people, where he attempted to obtain their signatures to an affidavit already prepared.

They said they disagreed with a clause which says that they agree to obtain compensation, because the amount of compensation they would get is not mentioned anywhere.

The DS confirmed no figures were given and asked them to make their written observations in the document.

The owners insisted that particular clause be omitted if they are to sign the affidavit and said they need to be party to deciding the amount of compensation.

The DS was asked to calculate the present-day value of the land and include it in the document.

Correspondents reported that the people walked out of the meeting in protest.

Quoting a woman among them, correspondents said the land acquired is not used in the expansion of the airport, but that members of the military are seen doing farming there.