Legal Resources & Insights

Introduction

For decades, the power of the Executive President to grant a pardon under Article 34 of the Sri Lankan Constitution was widely viewed as an absolute, untouchable personal prerogative. However, in a series of landmark judgments, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka established that executive mercy is not a private gift or personal favor—it is a constitutional power held in public trust.

In three major cases involving high-profile convicts—Don Shramantha Jude Anthony Jayamaha (the Royal Park murder case), Arumadura Lawrence Romelo Duminda Silva (the Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra murder case), and Rev. Galagodaaththe Gnanasara Thero (the Contempt of Court case)—the Supreme Court systematically struck down presidential pardons, declaring them null, void, and arbitrary.

This commentary explains the legal principles established across these three landmark rulings for the general public.

 

Summary of the Three Landmark Judgments

1. The Royal Park Murder Case

(Women & Media Collective v. Hon. Attorney General & Others , SC FR 446/2019 Decided on 06^th June, 2024)

• Don Shramantha Jude Anthony Jayamaha was convicted of the brutal murder of Yvonne Johnson and sentenced to death, a conviction affirmed by the Supreme Court. In 2016, former President Maithripala Sirisena commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment (1st Pardon), and in November 2019, released him completely on a presidential pardon (2nd Pardon).
• The Supreme Court declared both pardons null and void ab initio. The Court found a total failure to follow mandatory constitutional procedures, an arbitrary exercise of discretion, failure to notify the victim’s family, and a blatant breach of the Public Trust Doctrine. Former President Sirisena was personally ordered to pay compensation and legal costs.

2. The Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra Murder Case

(Hirunika Premachandra v. Hon. Attorney General & Others , SC FR 221/2021, 225/2021, & 228/2021 Decided on 17.01.2024)

• Former Member of Parliament Duminda Silva was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a High Court Trial-at-Bar, which was unanimously affirmed by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court. He was subsequently granted a presidential pardon by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
• The Supreme Court quashed the pardon and declared it null and void. The Court noted that no written reasons or official records justifying the decision were produced, trial judges had refused to recommend a pardon, the Attorney General had advised that any pardon must meet objective standards of rationality, and the victim’s family was never notified.

3. The Contempt of Court case against Rev. Galagodaaththe Gnanasara Thero

(Centre for Policy Alternatives v. H.E Maithripala Sirisena & Others, SC FR 256/2019 & 257/2019 Decided on 10.09.2026)

• Galagodaaththe Gnanasara Thero was convicted of contempt of court by the Court of Appeal and sentenced to 06 years rigorous imprisonment for threatening a magistrate and disrupting judicial proceedings. Former President Maithripala Sirisena granted him a full pardon shortly after his conviction.
• The Supreme Court held that pardoning a contempt of court convict without a rational basis strikes at the very dignity, authority, and independence of the judiciary. The President had acted mechanically by merely signing off on an administrative recommendation without applying his own independent, documented reasoning. The pardon was declared null and void.

 

Core legal principles established by the supreme court

Synthesizing these three rulings reveals six fundamental pillars that now govern the law on presidential pardons in Sri Lanka:

1. Public trust doctrine, not personal prerogative

The Supreme Court firmly rejected the notion that a President possesses monarchical or unfettered powers. All executive power originates from the sovereign People and is entrusted to the President to be exercised strictly for the public good and public interest, not for private grace, personal political alliances, or arbitrary favor.

2. Presidential pardons are fully reviewable by courts

The Court established that the President’s decision to grant or refuse a pardon is subject to judicial review under the Supreme Court’s Fundamental Rights jurisdiction (Article 126 read with Article 17). Judicial scrutiny is not restricted to formal procedure; courts can evaluate the substantive merits to ensure the decision is not arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, or tainted by bad faith (mala fides).

3. Strict compliance with mandatory constitutional procedures

Under the Proviso to Article 34(1) of the Constitution, when a convict is sentenced to death, the President must strictly follow a three-step sequential process before granting a pardon:

• • Cause a report to be made by the trial judge(s) who tried the case.
  • Forward that report to the Attorney General for advice thereon.
  • Forward the judge’s report and AG’s advice to the Minister of Justice for a recommendation to the President.

Bypassing any of these steps or treating routine prison reports (e.g., Section 286(b) reports) as substitutes renders the pardon procedurally illegal and void ab initio.

4. Mandatory legal duty to notify and hear victims

Under Section 3(q) of the Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act (No. 4 of 2015) (and Section 5(1)(f) of Act No. 10 of 2023), crime victims have a statutory right to receive advance notice when a pardon is under consideration and to submit an impact statement. The Supreme Court held that this requirement co-exists with Article 34 and is mandatory. Failing to notify victims violates their Fundamental Right to equal protection of the law under Article 12(1).

5. Duty to document rational reasons

A decision-maker cannot act in secret or without reasons. The Supreme Court ruled that the President is under a legal duty to contemporaneously record clear, objective, and rational reasons for granting a pardon in the official records. If no written decision or reasons exist in the official record, the Court will presume the decision was taken without reason, making it inherently arbitrary and capricious.

6. A pardon does not wipe out guilt or erase the conviction

The Supreme Court clarified the legal effect of executive clemency: a pardon only relieves the offender from the execution of the sentence—it does NOT alter the judicial record, overturn the conviction, or erase the historical fact of guilt. Determining guilt and conviction is an exclusive judicial power; the executive cannot usurp judicial power under the guise of mercy.

 

Conclusion

These three landmark judgments mark a decisive turning point in Sri Lankan constitutional jurisprudence. By asserting that executive discretion has limits, enforcing mandatory procedural safeguards, protecting crime victims, and holding Head of State decisions accountable to Article 12(1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has reinforced the Rule of Law, the Separation of Powers, and Judicial Independence.