Compare the scope of presidential pardoning power and its judicial reviewability in India and Sri Lanka.

Clemency is an executive act of grace that tempers the rigour of law. Both India (Articles 72 and 161) and Sri Lanka (Article 34) vest it in the Head of State, yet they differ in how the power is exercised and how far courts may test it — a contrast sharpened by Sri Lanka's Supreme Court voiding a presidential pardon in September 2026.

Scope of the power

• India — Article 72: the President may grant pardons, reprieves, respites and remissions, or suspend, remit and commute sentences, in court-martial cases, offences under Union law, and all death sentences [1].
• Article 161 gives Governors a parallel but narrower power — it does not extend to court-martial sentences or to pardoning a death sentence [1].
• Crucially, the power is exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, making it a cabinet decision carrying political accountability [1].
• Sri Lanka — Article 34: in an executive presidency, the President personally may grant a free or conditional pardon, an indefinite respite, or substitute a less severe punishment, and may pardon an accomplice who turns approver [2]. Capital cases attract procedural safeguards — the trial judge's report and the Attorney-General's advice [2].

Judicial reviewability

• India's courts treat the power as wide but not immune. In Kehar Singh (1989) the Supreme Court declined to sit in appeal over the merits of clemency [3].
• Epuru Sudhakar (2006) settled that clemency is reviewable for arbitrariness, mala fides, extraneous considerations (caste, religion, political affiliation) or non-application of mind [3].
• Sri Lanka's judiciary has moved similarly through litigation. On 10 September 2026 a three-judge bench declared the 2019 pardon of Bodu Bala Sena leader Gnanasara Thero "arbitrary" and null, ordering him back to serve his six-year contempt sentence [4].

Both systems thus converge on a shared principle: mercy is a constitutional trust, not unfettered privilege. Reasoned clemency orders, recorded grounds and timely disposal would strengthen this trust, ensuring the pardon remains an instrument of justice rather than of patronage.