Judicial Review Of Clemency Powers
What are Clemency Powers?
Clemency powers refer to the constitutional authority vested in the President (Article 72) and Governors (Article 161) to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment.
It is an act of mercy or leniency that allows the executive to modify or set aside judicial punishments.
The power is discretionary and meant as a check on the judiciary to provide relief in exceptional cases.
Nature of Clemency Powers
Discretionary and Extraordinary: Meant for exceptional cases, not a routine interference in judicial decisions.
Not an Appeal: Clemency is not a rehearing of the case but a mercy petition.
Scope: Includes full pardon, commutation, remission, respite, or suspension of sentence.
Objective: Correct miscarriages of justice, humanitarian grounds, or public interest.
Judicial Review of Clemency Powers
Historically, courts were reluctant to interfere with clemency as it was considered purely executive.
However, over time, courts have held that judicial review is possible on limited grounds, such as:
Malafide exercise of power.
Arbitrary or discriminatory action.
Non-application or improper application of mind.
Violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights.
Courts will not substitute their own opinion but ensure the process is fair and constitutional.
Important Case Laws on Judicial Review of Clemency Powers
1. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470
Facts: Question on the scope of Article 72 and commutation of death sentence.
Issue: Whether the President can commute a death sentence to life imprisonment.
Judgment: Supreme Court held clemency powers are absolute but cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
Significance: Established the basis for judicial review against arbitrary exercise.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
Facts: Landmark case on basic structure doctrine.
Issue: Though primarily about constitutional amendments, it touched upon executive powers including clemency.
Judgment: Affirmed that all powers, including clemency, are subject to the Constitution.
Significance: Clemency powers are subject to constitutional limitations and judicial scrutiny.
3. Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 728
Facts: Mercy petition rejected without considering all aspects.
Issue: Whether courts can examine the process followed in clemency petitions.
Judgment: Supreme Court held courts can review if there is procedural unfairness or malafide.
Significance: Affirmed judicial review of clemency decisions on procedural grounds.
4. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1
Facts: Delays in deciding mercy petitions of death row convicts.
Issue: Whether delay violates right to life and is subject to judicial review.
Judgment: Court held undue delay in disposal of mercy petitions violates Article 21 and must be treated as grounds for judicial review.
Significance: Introduced timeliness and fairness as criteria in clemency petitions.
5. Triloki Nath v. Union of India (1987) 3 SCC 382
Facts: Alleged malafide exercise of clemency power.
Issue: Grounds for judicial review of clemency rejection.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that the power can be reviewed on malafide, irrationality, or procedural lapses.
Significance: Reiterated limited judicial scrutiny.
6. Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of A.P. (2006) 8 SCC 161
Facts: Mercy petition rejected without reasons.
Issue: Whether non-communication of reasons for rejection violates natural justice.
Judgment: Court held that executive must apply mind and reasons, even if not in formal writing.
Significance: Emphasized reasoned decision-making in clemency.
Summary Table: Judicial Review of Clemency Powers
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Clemency Powers | Discretionary executive powers under Articles 72 & 161 |
| Scope of Powers | Pardons, commutations, remissions, reprieves |
| Nature | Extraordinary, not an appeal |
| Judicial Review Grounds | Malafide, arbitrariness, procedural unfairness, constitutional violations |
| Not Judicial Re-Examination | Courts don’t re-assess facts or guilt |
| Key Judgments | Mithu, Maru Ram, Shatrughan Chauhan, Triloki Nath |
Conclusion
Judicial review of clemency powers is a balance between respecting executive discretion and ensuring constitutional safeguards. Courts intervene only in exceptional cases where there is malafide, arbitrariness, or procedural lapses, ensuring the clemency power is exercised fairly and transparently.
RELATED Blog
0 comments