Presidential Pardon Powers Under Article 72
Constitutional Provision
Article 72 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President of India to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence.
This power is exercisable in respect of offences under Union law and extends to:
Punishments by a court-martial,
Cases involving the death penalty (capital punishment).
Scope of Article 72 Powers
The President may grant clemency in the following forms:
Pardon: Complete forgiveness, removes the sentence and conviction, restoring all civil rights.
Commutation: Reduces the severity of the punishment (e.g., death penalty to life imprisonment).
Remission: Reduces the period of imprisonment without changing the sentence.
Respite: Reduces sentence due to special circumstances (like pregnancy or illness).
Reprieve: Temporary suspension of sentence execution, especially for death sentences.
Nature of the Power
Discretionary: The power is exercised at the President’s discretion, but usually on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Judicial Review: While courts have limited scope to interfere, the exercise of this power is generally immune from judicial scrutiny except in cases of mala fide or arbitrariness.
Policy Objective: To provide a final safeguard against miscarriage of justice and to consider humanitarian grounds.
Important Case Laws on Presidential Pardon Powers (Article 72)
1. Mukul Antony v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3309
Facts:
Petition challenged the rejection of mercy petition by the President in a death penalty case.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the President’s power under Article 72 is absolute and not subject to judicial review, except in cases of mala fide or wholly arbitrary exercise.
Significance:
Affirmed the non-justiciability of the clemency power, emphasizing its discretionary nature.
2. Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1479
Facts:
The petitioner sought commutation of death sentence.
Judgment:
The Court observed that the exercise of mercy power should be in public interest and based on valid grounds, including humanitarian considerations.
Significance:
Established guidelines that clemency should consider individual circumstances and justice.
3. Kehar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 653
Facts:
The mercy petitions of convicts sentenced to death for conspiracy to assassinate the Prime Minister were rejected by the President.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that the power of pardon is subject to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and courts cannot interfere in the President’s decision.
Significance:
Reinforced the executive primacy in clemency decisions.
4. Shiv Kant Shukla v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1926
Facts:
Challenged the scope of judicial review on President’s pardon power.
Judgment:
Court held that courts can interfere only when there is clear mala fide, corruption, or violation of constitutional principles.
Significance:
Limited judicial intervention, preserving the sanctity of Article 72 power.
5. Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of A.P., (2006) 8 SCC 161
Facts:
Petition challenging delay in disposal of mercy petition.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that undue delay in deciding mercy petitions violates Article 21 (right to life) and must be avoided.
Significance:
Created procedural safeguards ensuring timely consideration of mercy pleas.
6. Sher Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 465
Facts:
Delay in the processing of mercy petition filed by a death row convict.
Judgment:
Court directed that mercy petitions must be disposed of within a reasonable time to uphold fundamental rights.
Significance:
Protected prisoners’ rights against unreasonable delay in clemency decisions.
7. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, AIR 2007 SC 184
Facts:
Though primarily about parliamentary privileges, the court discussed the constitutional scope of presidential powers.
Judgment:
Observed that Article 72 powers must be exercised in accordance with constitutional principles and not arbitrarily.
Significance:
Emphasized the constitutional framework within which pardon powers operate.
Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case | Issue | Legal Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Mukul Antony v. Union of India (1997) | Judicial review of clemency powers | Presidential power is discretionary and largely immune from judicial review except mala fide |
| Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) | Grounds for mercy | Clemency should consider humanitarian grounds and public interest |
| Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989) | Executive advice in mercy petitions | President acts on aid and advice; courts cannot interfere |
| Shiv Kant Shukla v. Union of India (1976) | Scope of judicial review of clemency | Interference only in mala fide or unconstitutional cases |
| Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of A.P. (2006) | Delay in mercy petition disposal | Undue delay violates right to life (Article 21) |
| Sher Singh v. Union of India (1983) | Timely disposal of mercy petitions | Mercy petitions must be disposed within reasonable time |
| Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker (2007) | Constitutional limits on presidential powers | Pardoning power must align with constitutional principles |
Important Points to Note
The President’s clemency power acts as a final check against judicial errors, especially in capital punishment cases.
Though it is discretionary, advice from the Council of Ministers guides the exercise of this power.
Judicial intervention is rare and only in extreme cases of abuse, mala fide, or procedural violation.
Timely disposal of mercy petitions is a constitutional mandate to protect fundamental rights.
Conclusion
Article 72 empowers the President with sweeping clemency powers essential for humanitarian relief and justice correction. The judiciary has consistently protected this power from unwarranted interference but insists on procedural fairness and non-arbitrariness. It serves as an important constitutional mechanism balancing justice, mercy, and governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments