Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The President of India holds the extraordinary power of granting pardons and reprieves, a unique provision enshrined in Article 72 of the Constitution. This power, inherited from the British system, reflects the concept of mercy and aims to provide a degree of clemency in the administration of justice. Recent instances, such as premature releases of convicts on remission, have sparked debates regarding the appropriate exercise and judicial oversight of these powers, highlighting the delicate balance between executive prerogative and judicial accountability. Understanding the scope and limitations of this power, along with the extent of judicial review, is crucial for a comprehensive grasp of the Indian constitutional framework.
Understanding the Pardoning Powers – Article 72
Article 72 of the Constitution outlines the powers of the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, and remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit, and commute sentences in proceedings for offences against any law relating to a matter within the competence of the Parliament.
Types of Pardoning Powers
- Pardon: Complete forgiveness of the sentence.
- Reprieve: Temporary suspension of the sentence.
- Respite: Delaying the execution of a sentence.
- Remission: Reducing the period of the sentence without altering its character.
- Commutation: Substituting a lighter punishment for a heavier one.
Scope of Judicial Review over Presidential Pardons
While the power to grant pardons is vested in the President, it is not absolute. The judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring that this power is exercised within constitutional boundaries. The principle of separation of powers dictates that while the executive enjoys this prerogative, the judiciary retains the power to scrutinize its exercise.
Early Interpretations & the ‘Wednesbury Unreasonableness’ Doctrine
Initially, courts adopted a hands-off approach, treating the President's power as sacrosanct. However, this changed with the landmark case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985), which demonstrated the judiciary’s willingness to examine executive actions. The concept of ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ was introduced, suggesting that judicial intervention is warranted if a decision is so arbitrary, irrational, or outrageous that no reasonable person could have taken it.
Key Judgments and Evolving Jurisprudence
- K.S. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997): The Supreme Court held that the power of pardon is not absolute and is subject to judicial review, particularly when the exercise of the power is malafide or arbitrary. It emphasized that the President must act in aid of the Constitution.
- Shanti Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2001): This case clarified that the President's power extends to sentences of imprisonment, but not to acquittals. It reinforces that the power cannot be used to alter the findings of fact made by a court.
- Yakub Memon Case (2015): This case highlighted the sensitivity surrounding mercy petitions, particularly in cases involving terrorism. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the President acting in accordance with constitutional principles and after due consideration of all relevant factors.
- Premature Release Cases (2022-2023): Recent instances of premature releases, particularly in Gujarat, have drawn significant judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the erosion of judicial pronouncements and the undermining of the rule of law. This has led to a re-evaluation of the process and safeguards surrounding the exercise of these powers.
Limitations on Judicial Review
- The judiciary cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the President.
- The court can only intervene if there is a clear violation of constitutional principles or a demonstrable element of arbitrariness or malafide.
- The power of judicial review is not a license to review the merits of the decision, but rather to examine the process and legality of the exercise of power.
Constitutional Rationale & Balancing Act
The pardoning powers are intended to provide a mechanism for correcting potential injustices and demonstrating clemency. However, the exercise of this power must be balanced against the need to uphold the rule of law, maintain public confidence in the judicial system, and ensure that sentences are carried out as determined by courts. The judiciary's role is to ensure this balance is maintained.
| Case Name | Year | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum | 1985 | Demonstrated judicial scrutiny of executive actions. |
| K.S. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu | 1997 | President’s power is not absolute and subject to judicial review. |
| Shanti Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh | 2001 | Pardon power extends to imprisonment, not acquittals. |
| Yakub Memon Case | 2015 | Importance of constitutional principles and due consideration. |
Conclusion
The President's pardoning powers, while a vital component of the Indian constitutional system, are not immune to judicial scrutiny. The evolving jurisprudence demonstrates a gradual shift towards greater accountability, ensuring that this power is exercised responsibly and within the bounds of the Constitution. The recent premature release cases underscore the urgent need for greater transparency and adherence to due process in the exercise of these powers, reinforcing the judiciary's role as the guardian of the rule of law and the protector of constitutional values. Moving forward, a clear framework with well-defined guidelines is necessary to prevent arbitrary exercise and maintain public trust.
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.