Two additional intervening petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court in support of the Government's Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution Bill, widening the legal contest over the proposed constitutional changes.
One petition was filed by Sarath Manamendra, leader of Nava Sihala Urumaya, while another was filed by K. Sarath Lal Perera, General Secretary of the National Organization for the Protection of Retired Rights, according to court reporting on Friday.
The petitioners argue that the Bill has been presented lawfully and ask the Supreme Court to determine that it may be enacted without approval at a referendum.
Their submissions represent arguments put before the Court. They are not a determination by the Supreme Court.
Bill already before the Supreme Court
The Twenty-Second Amendment Bill was presented to Parliament for its First Reading on 18 August 2026.
Parliament's official record confirms that the Bill includes provisions concerning the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.
Under the constitutional procedure for Bills of this kind, parties may petition the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the proposed legislation.
Parliament subsequently recorded the Speaker's receipt of copies of petitions filed in the Supreme Court concerning the Bill.
The new intervening applications mean the Court is now receiving arguments not only from those challenging aspects of the Bill but also from parties expressly asking that it be permitted to proceed without a referendum.
What happens next?
The Supreme Court must consider the constitutional questions properly placed before it and communicate its determination through the constitutionally prescribed process.
Until that determination is issued, claims by the Government, opponents of the Bill and supporting intervenient petitioners remain legal positions being advanced by the respective parties.
The final constitutional position should therefore not be inferred from the number of petitions filed on either side.