Examine the doctrine of judicial review of executive clemency powers with reference to recent developments in Sri Lanka's judiciary.

Clemency is an executive act of grace, not an appellate re-hearing of a conviction. Courts therefore review the manner of its exercise rather than its merits — a limit Sri Lanka's Supreme Court has just enforced against a presidential pardon.

Doctrinal basis of reviewability

• Grace, not immunity: a pardon remits punishment without erasing the conviction; being a constitutional power, it must respect constitutional limits.
• India's Kehar Singh (1988): the President's power under Article 72 is wide and its merits are non-justiciable, yet its scope and validity remain examinable by courts [3].
• Epuru Sudhakar (2006) crystallised the grounds — non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, omission of relevant material, and arbitrariness [4].
• Sri Lanka's Article 34 confers an apparently untrammelled pardon power [1]; the equality guarantee in Article 12(1) supplied the handle for review [2].

The Sri Lankan development

• A three-judge bench (10 September 2026) declared null and void the May 2019 pardon granted by then President Sirisena to Bodu Bala Sena leader Gnanasara Thero, convicted in 2018 of contempt of court and intimidating Sandya Eknaligoda, and ordered him back to prison [5].
• The stated vice was arbitrariness: the President endorsed a recommendation without showing independent consideration — the Sri Lankan analogue of "non-application of mind" [5].
• The petition came from the Centre for Policy Alternatives and a victim's family, showing civil-society standing as an accountability route [2].

Implications and limits

• Reinforces separation of powers and deters clemency as political patronage for influential figures.
• Yet a seven-year adjudication delay dilutes the remedy and unsettles a released convict's expectations [2].

Judicial review thus disciplines, rather than displaces, executive mercy. The durable safeguard is procedural: reasoned, recorded clemency orders, mandatory consultation with the trial court and victims, and time-bound hearings of challenges — converting pardon from personal favour into a constitutional trust, consistent with SDG-16's promise of accountable institutions.