Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Article 72 of the Indian Constitution grants the President the power to grant pardons and suspend or commute sentences for offenses punishable by law. This power, rooted in the principles of restorative justice and the executive's responsibility to temper the application of the law, is a unique feature of the Indian constitutional framework. It reflects the belief that the executive should possess the ability to exercise clemency in exceptional circumstances. The power isn't absolute; it's subject to judicial scrutiny, leading to a complex interplay between executive discretion and judicial oversight. The recent commutation of sentences in cases related to the 1993 Mumbai blasts, while controversial, highlights the ongoing relevance of this constitutional power.
Justification Behind the Pardoning Power (Article 72)
The rationale behind the President’s pardoning power stems from several core constitutional principles:
- Mercy and Clemency: The power is intended to allow the executive to exercise mercy and grant clemency in cases where justice might demand it, considering the specific circumstances of the offender and the broader societal impact. It embodies the concept of 'equity' within the legal system.
- Executive Discretion: It provides the executive with a degree of discretion to address situations that might not be fully captured by rigid legal frameworks. This is particularly relevant in cases involving political offenses or those with significant humanitarian considerations.
- Constitutional Balance: The power contributes to a balance between the judiciary’s role in administering justice and the executive’s responsibility to govern and potentially mitigate the harshness of legal outcomes.
- Historical Context: The concept of clemency is not new. It finds roots in the British monarch’s prerogative of mercy, which was adapted and incorporated into the Indian Constitution during its formative years.
Scope of the Pardoning Power
Article 72 empowers the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, remissions, and commutations. Let's understand each:
- Pardon: Complete and unconditional forgiveness of the offender.
- Reprieve: Temporary suspension of the sentence.
- Respite: Deferment of the execution of a sentence.
- Remission: Reduction of the sentence in duration.
- Commutation: Substitution of one form of punishment for a lighter one (e.g., death sentence to life imprisonment).
The power extends to offenses that are punishable by law, meaning those tried under state or union laws. However, it *doesn’t* extend to offenses that are exclusively within the purview of the military courts (Article 131).
Judicial Review of the Pardoning Power
While Article 72 grants significant power to the President, it is not immune from judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court has consistently asserted the power of judicial review over the exercise of this power, albeit with considerable deference to executive discretion.
Early Stage: Absolute Discretion
Initially, the courts held that the President’s power was absolute and beyond judicial review. However, this view was quickly challenged.
Shibban Lal v. State of Bihar (1965)
This landmark case marked a shift. The Supreme Court held that while the power is primarily executive, it is still subject to judicial review on the grounds of mala fide (bad faith) or if it is exercised in violation of constitutional principles or statutory provisions. The court emphasized that the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, implying that the decision-making process is not entirely immune from scrutiny.
Kehar Singh v. State of Haryana (1998)
This case further clarified the scope of judicial review. The Supreme Court reiterated that the power is not absolute and can be challenged if it is exercised arbitrarily, without due consideration of relevant factors, or in violation of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the President's decision must be based on a rational and objective assessment of the case, and not on extraneous or irrelevant considerations.
Limitations on Judicial Review
- The Court will not interfere with the President’s decision merely because it disagrees with the policy behind it.
- The Court will not examine the reasons for the decision unless there is a clear indication of mala fide or arbitrariness.
- The Court acknowledges the political context and the importance of executive discretion in matters of clemency.
| Case Name | Year | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Shibban Lal v. State of Bihar | 1965 | Pardoning power is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fide. |
| Kehar Singh v. State of Haryana | 1998 | Reaffirmed that power isn't absolute; can be challenged for arbitrariness and lack of objective assessment. |
Recent Developments
The commutation of sentences in the 1993 Mumbai blasts cases in 2022 sparked considerable debate. While the government justified the decision on humanitarian grounds, it also raised questions about the criteria used and the potential impact on victims’ families. This underlines the ongoing tension between executive clemency and the principles of justice and accountability.
Conclusion
The President’s pardoning power, enshrined in Article 72, represents a vital check on the judicial system and a manifestation of executive clemency. While the power is significant, it is not absolute and remains subject to judicial review, particularly when exercised arbitrarily or in bad faith. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence, evolving from a stance of deference to a position of cautious scrutiny, reflects a commitment to balancing executive authority with constitutional principles of fairness and justice. The ongoing debates surrounding recent exercises of this power underscore the need for greater transparency and objective criteria in its application.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.