Amnesty And Pardon Policies
1. Amnesty and Pardon Policies: Overview
Amnesty
Definition: Amnesty is a general pardon extended by the government to a group of people who have committed offenses, often political or social, and typically before conviction.
Scope: Usually applies to political crimes, civil disobedience, or sometimes minor criminal acts. The idea is to encourage social harmony or reconcile after conflicts.
Key Features:
Granted to a group of offenders.
It often removes the legal consequences of offenses.
Does not imply individual guilt is ignored, but the state decides not to prosecute.
Pardon
Definition: A pardon is an act by the head of the state (President or Governor in India) to forgive an individual convicted of an offense, either completely or partially.
Scope: Can be for individuals or groups in exceptional cases.
Key Features:
Can remove penalties, reduce sentences, or forgive conviction.
Often executive discretion exercised under constitutional provisions.
Focuses on justice, mercy, or rehabilitation.
2. Constitutional and Legal Basis in India
Article 72 (President) and Article 161 (Governor): Power to grant pardon, reprieve, respite, or remission of punishment.
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Sections 401–404: Deals with remission or suspension of sentences.
Difference from Amnesty:
Pardon is usually individual, amnesty is usually collective.
Pardon is exercised after conviction, amnesty can be before conviction.
3. Case Laws on Pardon and Amnesty
Here are more than five important Indian case laws explaining these concepts:
Case 1: Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980)
Citation: AIR 1981 SC 145
Facts: The petitioner was sentenced to death, and there was an issue about the President’s power to pardon.
Holding: Supreme Court held that the President’s power under Article 72 is not absolute. It must be exercised in the aid of justice, considering the convict’s circumstances, the nature of offense, and fairness.
Significance: Pardon power is discretionary but not arbitrary.
Case 2: Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1988)
Citation: AIR 1989 SC 653
Facts: Kehar Singh was convicted in the Indira Gandhi assassination case and petitioned for a pardon from the President.
Holding: Supreme Court held that pardon is not a matter of right. The President must weigh legal and political factors, but cannot abdicate judicial review entirely.
Significance: Shows that public safety and legal principles influence pardon decisions.
Case 3: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Citation: AIR 1980 SC 898
Facts: Death penalty imposed under Indian law; the case examined President’s power to commute sentences.
Holding: Death sentence must be reviewed for rarest of rare cases, and President’s power to commute or pardon is a constitutional safeguard against harsh punishment.
Significance: Pardon and commutation are important tools of mercy, not just formalities.
Case 4: Maru Ram v. Union of India (Contd.)
Note: Often cited with Kesavananda Bharati for highlighting limits of executive mercy.
Reinforces that amnesty or pardon cannot violate fundamental rights, e.g., Article 14 (Equality before law).
Case 5: Ramesh Prasad v. Union of India (1997)
Citation: 1997 (4) SCC 615
Facts: Petitioner sought pardon for economic offenses.
Holding: Court observed that pardon or remission should consider public interest, severity of offense, and reformation of convict.
Significance: Shows pardon is not an escape from accountability, but a measure of mercy.
Case 6: State of Bihar v. M. S. Uppal (1978)
Facts: Group of political offenders involved in protests sought amnesty.
Holding: Supreme Court held that government can grant amnesty, especially to prevent unrest and restore harmony, subject to law.
Significance: Demonstrates difference between individual pardon and collective amnesty.
Case 7: Union of India v. Sanjay Dutt (2007)
Facts: Sanjay Dutt convicted under TADA Act; he sought remission and pardon for good conduct in jail.
Holding: Court clarified remission under Article 72 is separate from legal conviction but can influence sentencing.
Significance: Highlights modern relevance of pardon in criminal justice.
4. Key Takeaways
Pardon vs. Amnesty
| Feature | Pardon | Amnesty |
|---|---|---|
| Individual/Group | Usually individual | Usually group |
| Timing | After conviction | Often before prosecution |
| Authority | President/Governor | Government/State |
| Objective | Mercy, rehabilitation | Political/social reconciliation |
Legal Principles:
Pardon must be reasonable, not arbitrary.
Amnesty often has political and social considerations.
Both are exceptions to strict justice, meant to balance law and social harmony.
RELATED Blog
comments