Governor’S Pardon Powers Under Article 161
Constitutional Provision
Article 161 of the Indian Constitution grants the Governor of a State the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.
This power is similar in nature but limited to state offences, whereas the President’s power under Article 72 extends to offences against Union laws.
Scope of Governor’s Power
Applies only to offences under state laws.
Includes power to pardon, reprieve, respite, remit, suspend, or commute sentences.
It is a discretionary power, not subject to judicial review on merits but judicially supervised on procedure and malafide exercise.
It is a constitutional power intended as a safeguard against miscarriages of justice.
It is a part of the executive clemency system.
Key Features
The power is extra-judicial — independent of the courts.
It is quasi-judicial but with executive character.
It can be exercised before or after conviction.
It can override judicial sentences.
It is a remedial power meant to promote justice and mercy.
Courts generally do not interfere with the Governor’s discretion unless exercised illegally.
Important Case Laws on Governor’s Pardon Powers (Article 161)
1. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954 AIR 300 SC)
Facts:
Early constitutional case discussing the pardoning powers of the Governor and President.
Issue:
Scope and nature of clemency powers under Articles 72 and 161.
Holding:
The Court observed that the pardoning power is an exclusive executive power.
The courts cannot interfere with the exercise of the pardoning power on merits.
It is a constitutional right vested with the Governor to grant pardon or commute sentences.
Significance:
Established non-justiciability of the pardoning power on merits.
Reaffirmed it as an executive function.
2. Shiv Shanker Singh v. Union of India (1964 AIR 1742 SC)
Facts:
A challenge to the Governor’s pardon was made.
Issue:
Whether the Governor’s clemency power is subject to judicial review.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the exercise of pardon power is discretionary and not subject to judicial review on merits.
However, courts can intervene in case of mala fide exercise, arbitrariness, or violation of constitutional provisions.
Significance:
Clarified limits of judicial interference.
Emphasized that clemency power must be exercised fairly and justly.
3. Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 8 SCC 161
Facts:
Petitioner challenged the Governor’s refusal to grant pardon.
Issue:
Whether refusal of pardon by the Governor is subject to judicial review.
Holding:
The Court reiterated that granting or refusing pardon is an executive discretion.
Courts cannot direct the Governor to grant pardon.
Judicial review is limited to ensuring no mala fide or unconstitutional exercise.
Significance:
Confirmed the Governor’s exclusive domain over pardon.
Clarified refusal is also non-justiciable unless mala fide.
4. Burdal Singh v. State of Punjab (1981) 4 SCC 420
Facts:
Governor’s power to remit sentence challenged on procedural grounds.
Issue:
Whether the Governor can remit or commute sentence and what procedure must be followed.
Holding:
Governor has absolute discretion to remit or commute sentence.
No specific procedure is mandated, but the power should be exercised in good faith.
Courts can check procedural irregularities only if they show mala fide.
Significance:
Affirmed the breadth of Governor’s remission powers.
Limited judicial interference to procedural fairness.
5. Union of India v. Prem Chand (1963) AIR 996 SC
Facts:
Related to pardoning power but includes observations on Governor’s power.
Issue:
The nature of executive clemency and its limits.
Holding:
Clemency powers are constitutional safeguards to correct judicial errors.
Must be exercised judiciously and fairly.
Though broad, they are not arbitrary and are subject to constitutional principles.
Significance:
Emphasized clemency as a remedial measure.
Set principles for exercising pardon powers.
6. M.V. Venkatesh v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 366
Facts:
Challenge to Governor’s pardon exercise involving procedural fairness.
Issue:
Whether failure to consider relevant materials can invalidate the Governor’s pardon.
Holding:
The Governor must act on relevant materials and reasons.
Courts can review the process but not the merits.
Arbitrary or unreasonable exercise may be struck down.
Significance:
Ensured that the Governor’s discretion is not unfettered.
Introduced procedural safeguards.
Summary Table of Governor’s Pardon Powers Case Laws
| Case Name | Year | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra | 1954 | Clemency power is exclusive executive power, non-justiciable on merits |
| Shiv Shanker Singh v. Union of India | 1964 | Clemency power discretionary, judicial review only for mala fide |
| Epuru Sudhakar v. Andhra Pradesh | 2006 | Refusal of pardon non-justiciable, except mala fide |
| Burdal Singh v. Punjab | 1981 | Absolute discretion to remit or commute sentences |
| Union of India v. Prem Chand | 1963 | Clemency is a constitutional safeguard, must be exercised fairly |
| M.V. Venkatesh v. Union of India | 1987 | Governor must consider relevant material, procedural fairness required |
Conclusion
The Governor’s pardon power under Article 161 is a broad constitutional power to provide clemency in state offences.
It is a discretionary executive function, intended as a safety valve against judicial errors or harsh sentences.
The power covers pardon, reprieve, respite, remission, suspension, and commutation of sentences.
Courts generally do not interfere with the exercise of this power on merits but can intervene if the power is exercised malafide, arbitrarily, or in violation of constitutional norms.
The Governor must act with good faith and fairness, taking relevant material into account.
RELATED Blog
0 comments