Governor’S Power Under Article 161
What is Article 161?
Article 161 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Governor of a State to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offense against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the state extends.
Key Features of Article 161
Scope: Applies only to offenses against state laws (unlike the President’s power under Article 72 which applies to central laws).
Types of Clemency: Includes pardon, reprieve, respite, remission, suspension, or commutation of sentence.
Subject: Convicted persons under state laws.
Nature of Power: Discretionary and executive.
Non-justiciability: Courts generally do not interfere with the Governor’s clemency decisions, but limited judicial review exists for procedural fairness.
Nature of the Governor’s Clemency Power
The Governor’s power is similar to the President’s power under Article 72, but limited to state subjects.
It is an executive power meant for mercy or correcting miscarriages of justice.
It can be exercised at any time after conviction, even after sentence execution has begun.
The power is absolute but subject to judicial scrutiny in cases of mala fide use or non-application of mind.
Landmark Case Laws on Governor’s Power under Article 161
1. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)
Facts: This early case discussed the scope of clemency powers in India.
Held: The Supreme Court distinguished between the powers of the President under Article 72 and the Governor under Article 161, clarifying that the Governor’s clemency powers apply only to state law offenses.
Significance: Defined the constitutional ambit of Article 161 vis-à-vis Article 72.
2. Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2006)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the Governor’s remission of a sentence on grounds of arbitrariness.
Issue: Whether the Governor’s exercise of clemency under Article 161 is subject to judicial review.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the Governor’s clemency power is subject to judicial review only in cases of malafide exercise or non-application of mind but is otherwise discretionary.
Significance: Affirmed the limited but important scope of judicial review over the Governor’s clemency decisions.
3. The State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)
Facts: Although primarily about the misuse of power, this case also touched upon the discretionary powers of the executive, including clemency powers.
Held: The Court held that the Governor’s powers should not be exercised arbitrarily and must be reasonable and just.
Significance: Established that the Governor’s clemency power must be exercised in good faith and not capriciously.
4. Nagasundaram v. Government of Tamil Nadu (1970)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the Governor’s remission of sentence on procedural grounds.
Issue: Can the courts examine the process followed by the Governor in exercising clemency powers?
Held: The Court held that while the decision itself is not subject to judicial review, courts can intervene if there is a violation of the procedure or mala fide exercise.
Significance: Procedural fairness is required even in clemency matters.
5. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1967)
Facts: The case discussed the limits of Governor’s clemency powers, particularly in sentences involving capital punishment.
Held: The Governor can grant clemency in any form but cannot alter the verdict or conviction. Clemency relates only to the punishment.
Significance: Clarified that the Governor’s power does not interfere with judicial findings of guilt but only with the execution of punishment.
6. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966)
Facts: Although this case primarily involved the President’s clemency, the principles relating to the exercise of mercy and the scope of executive clemency apply to Governors as well.
Held: The Court emphasized that clemency powers are discretionary and must be exercised reasonably.
Significance: Reiterated that clemency is an extraordinary remedy, not a right.
7. Union of India v. Prem Shankar Shukla (1980)
Facts: This case examined clemency powers in the context of both President and Governors, focusing on abuse of power.
Held: The Court stressed that clemency powers cannot be used arbitrarily or for extraneous purposes.
Significance: Reinforced that the power must be exercised judiciously and fairly.
Summary of the Governor’s Power Under Article 161
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Source of Power | Article 161 of the Indian Constitution |
| Scope | Convicted persons under state laws |
| Types of Clemency | Pardon, reprieve, respite, remission, commutation |
| Nature | Discretionary, executive, non-justiciable except limited judicial review for mala fide conduct or procedural irregularities |
| Relation to President’s Power | Limited to state laws (President’s clemency covers central laws) |
| Judicial Review | Limited, only on grounds of malafide, arbitrariness, or procedural violation |
RELATED Blog
0 comments