Judges are liable to pay income tax on their remuneration, the Supreme Court has ruled, while noting that judicial officers must receive adequate pay in recognition of their responsibilities.
The five-member bench dismissed three appeals filed by associations representing judicial officers. The judgment was delivered on September 15, 2026.
The appeals challenged a 2023 Court of Appeal ruling on the deduction of Advance Personal Income Tax (APIT) from judges’ remuneration.
The cases involved the High Court Judges’ Association, Judicial Service Association and Association of Judicial Officers of Labour Tribunal.
Court rejects challenge to APIT deductions
The judicial officers argued that they are not employees of the state or any other person.
They also argued that treating them as employees for tax purposes was inconsistent with judicial independence.
The associations sought to stop future APIT deductions and recover amounts already deducted.
Justice Janak De Silva, delivering the judgment, said the Inland Revenue Act does not create a conventional employer-employee relationship between judicial officers and the parties that pay their salaries.
Instead, the law identifies the party that pays the remuneration for the limited purpose of determining who must deduct APIT.
The court found that applying the Inland Revenue Act to judicial officers does not violate the Constitution.
It said the tax applies generally and does not discriminate against judges.
The court also found that the tax does not amount to a reduction in judicial remuneration that would affect judicial independence.
Court points to judicial pay
The ruling confirms that High Court judges, district judges and magistrates must pay income tax on their remuneration.
It also confirms that the authorities can deduct APIT from those payments.
However, the judgment recognized the financial difficulties judicial officers face following the introduction of income tax.
Justice De Silva said the answer was not to exempt judges from a tax that applies generally.
Instead, he said judicial officers should receive adequate remuneration in recognition of their responsibilities and their distinct position within the national wages policy.
The three appeals were dismissed without costs.
Chief Justice P. Padman Surasena and Justices Mahinda Samayawardhana and Arjuna Obeyesekere agreed with Justice De Silva’s judgment.
The ruling leaves the tax obligation in place while placing judicial remuneration within the wider question of how the responsibilities of judicial officers should be reflected in national wages policy.
More:
Rs. 9.9 Billion Urban Housing Project Delivers 1,000 Apartments in Stadiumgama
Last modified: September 17, 2026
