Stacking the Bench: How Sri Lanka's Judicial Appointment Practices Threaten Court Independence

A Growing Concern Over Judicial Independence

Sri Lanka's judiciary is facing mounting scrutiny over what critics are describing as a local version of "court packing" — a practice traditionally associated with political attempts to reshape the composition of courts in order to influence their decisions. Constitutional experts and legal observers are raising serious questions about whether current judicial appointment practices are compromising the independence of the country's highest courts.

What Is Court Packing and Why Does It Matter?

Court packing, in its most recognised form, refers to the deliberate expansion or manipulation of a court's bench by appointing judges who are sympathetic to a ruling government's political agenda. While the term is most commonly associated with United States political history, the underlying concern — that judicial appointments can be used as a tool of political control — is a universal one, and Sri Lanka is no exception.

For a nation that has weathered significant constitutional crises in recent decades, the integrity of the judiciary remains a cornerstone of democratic governance. Any perception that judicial appointments are being driven by political calculations rather than merit poses a direct threat to public confidence in the rule of law.

Constitutional Framework Under the Spotlight

Sri Lanka's Constitution vests considerable power in the executive when it comes to the appointment of senior judges, including those serving on the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. Critics argue that this structure, without sufficient checks and balances, creates the conditions under which a sitting government can gradually tilt the composition of the bench in its favour.

The Constitutional Council, which was reintroduced under the Nineteenth Amendment and later adjusted under the Twenty-Second Amendment, was designed to act as a buffer against purely partisan appointments. However, legal analysts point out that the effectiveness of this body depends heavily on the political will of those within it, and its track record has produced mixed results.

Implications for Citizens and the Rule of Law

The practical consequences of a politicised judiciary extend well beyond the courtroom. When citizens and institutions cannot trust that judges will rule impartially — free from executive influence — the entire legal framework that protects fundamental rights begins to erode. This is particularly significant in Sri Lanka, where the Supreme Court serves as the final guardian of constitutional rights.

• Cases involving government accountability may be decided along political lines rather than legal principle.
• Individuals challenging state decisions may face a structurally disadvantaged legal environment.
• Foreign investors and international partners may lose confidence in Sri Lanka's legal institutions.
• The separation of powers, a fundamental democratic safeguard, risks becoming a constitutional formality rather than a lived reality.

Calls for Structural Reform

Constitutional lawyers and civil society organisations have called for more transparent and merit-based processes for judicial appointments. Among the reforms proposed are strengthening the independence of the Constitutional Council, introducing parliamentary oversight with genuine cross-party participation, and establishing clear, publicly available criteria for the selection of senior judges.

The independence of the judiciary is not merely a legal principle — it is the foundation upon which every citizen's access to justice rests. When that foundation is weakened, it is ordinary Sri Lankans who pay the price.

A Moment for Reflection

As Sri Lanka continues its efforts to rebuild democratic institutions following years of political and economic turmoil, the question of judicial independence has never been more urgent. The country's long-term stability and its credibility as a state governed by law rather than by political convenience will depend, in no small part, on how seriously this challenge is addressed by lawmakers, legal professionals, and citizens alike.

The conversation around court composition and judicial appointments must move from the margins of legal academia into the mainstream of public and parliamentary debate — before the independence of Sri Lanka's courts becomes something spoken of only in the past tense.

Related Video