19th amendment to the constitution of sri lanka

The 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of

Sri Lanka, passed in April 2015, stands as a landmark legal reform in the post-
independence political history of the country. It was introduced with the intent to
reinforce democracy, promote good governance, and curb the excessive
centralization of power that had taken root, particularly under the 18th
Amendment. The 19th Amendment laid the foundation for a more accountable,
transparent, and balanced system of governance by introducing a series of reforms
aimed at re-democratizing the state machinery.
The key reforms introduced by the 19th Amendment include:
1. Reducing the powers of the Executive Presidency
2. Restoring term limits for the Presidency
3. Enhancing democratic governance and accountability
4. Strengthening the independence of key institutions, including the
judiciary, police, and election commission
5. Promoting greater checks and balances between the branches of
government
Each of these reforms contributed collectively to re-establishing constitutionalism
and the rule of law. Among them, two especially significant reforms are discussed
below.
1. Reduction of Executive Powers and Restoration of Presidential Term Limits
One of the most consequential aspects of the 19th Amendment was the dismantling
of the over-concentrated powers of the Executive Presidency. Under the 18th
Amendment, the President of Sri Lanka enjoyed near-absolute authority with
minimal checks, leading to an erosion of democratic principles. The 19th
Amendment countered this by re-imposing term limits, capping the presidency to
two terms, thus curbing the potential for authoritarianism and entrenchment in
power.
Further, the President’s discretion in appointments to high offices was drastically
curtailed. The power to dissolve Parliament was restricted—Parliament could no
longer be dissolved at will, but only after four and a half years into its term, unless
a two-thirds majority agreed otherwise. This reform created a more stable political
environment and ensured that elected legislatures could serve out their terms
without undue interference.
Moreover, the amendment made the Prime Minister the head of the Cabinet,
further reducing the unilateral control of the President and promoting a more
parliamentary-style governance.
2. Strengthening the Independence of Key Institutions
Another critical reform was the enhancement of the autonomy and independence of
central institutions that are foundational to democratic governance. The 19th
Amendment re-established the Constitutional Council, an independent body
responsible for approving appointments to top state positions, including the
judiciary, election commission, police commission, and public service commission.
This reform was vital in depoliticizing the state machinery. Under the previous
regime, these institutions had often been weakened through political appointments,
undermining their integrity and public confidence. By mandating that such
appointments pass through the Constitutional Council, the amendment ensured
greater transparency, meritocracy, and institutional independence.
In particular, the Election Commission was granted constitutional recognition and
strengthened in its ability to conduct free, fair, and transparent elections. The
judiciary, being a cornerstone of the rule of law, was also insulated from executive
interference, safeguarding judicial independence and enhancing public trust in the
justice system.
3. Enhancing Checks and Balances and Promoting Accountability
The Amendment also embedded the principle of separation of powers more firmly
into the constitutional framework. By limiting the dominance of the executive,
empowering Parliament, and ensuring the autonomy of the judiciary and other
oversight bodies, the 19th Amendment created a more balanced distribution of
power.
It encouraged accountability by reducing unilateral decision-making and requiring
greater parliamentary and institutional oversight. In effect, it established a system
where each branch of government—the executive, legislature, and judiciary—was
empowered to function independently, yet remained interdependent in ensuring
responsible governance.
Differences between the 18th and 19th amendments
The 18th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution of Sri Lanka introduced very
different changes, reflecting two opposing approaches to governance. The 18th
Amendment, passed in 2010, gave more power to the President. It removed the
two-term limit, allowing a President to stay in power for any number of terms. It
also allowed the President to appoint judges, police chiefs, and members of the
election commission directly, without any independent approval. Additionally, the
President had the power to dissolve Parliament after just one year, giving him a
strong hold over the legislature. On the other hand, the 19th Amendment, passed in
2015, was meant to reduce these powers and strengthen democracy. It restored the
two-term limit, ensuring that no President could stay in power forever. It also
brought back the Constitutional Council, an independent body that must approve
important appointments. The 19th Amendment also made it harder for the
President to dissolve Parliament—he could only do so after four and a half years.
In short, while the 18th Amendment centralized power in the hands of the
President, the 19th Amendment reduced presidential power and promoted
accountability, checks and balances, and institutional independence.
In conclusion, the 19th Amendment was a progressive and transformative step
toward restoring democratic governance in Sri Lanka. Its reforms were wide-
ranging and aimed squarely at reducing the overreach of executive power, re-
establishing constitutional safeguards, and promoting greater public accountability.
By restoring presidential term limits, empowering independent commissions, and
ensuring checks and balances, the amendment laid a stronger foundation for good
governance. Though its future has been subject to political developments and
debate, the 19th Amendment remains a defining example of the people’s demand
for a more accountable and democratic political order in Sri Lanka.