Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Governor of a State, as the constitutional head, wields significant executive powers, including the prerogative of mercy. Article 161 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Governor, subject to the provisions of any law made by the State Legislature, 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 crucial for ensuring justice and providing relief in appropriate cases, but it operates within specific constitutional and legal boundaries, primarily concerning matters over which the State’s executive power extends. Examining this power requires understanding its constitutional basis, scope, limitations, and relationship with the judicial process.
The pardoning power vested in the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution is a significant aspect of the State's executive authority. It is rooted in the principle of mercy and aims to provide a check on the judicial process or offer relief in exceptional circumstances.
Constitutional Basis and Scope
Article 161 explicitly states:
- "The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends."
Key aspects of the scope are:
- State Executive Power: The Governor's power is strictly confined to offences related to matters falling within the ambit of the State's executive power. This means it applies to offences under State laws or laws where the State has executive jurisdiction.
- Exclusion of Union Powers: It does not extend to offences against any law relating to a matter falling under the Union's executive power, nor does it cover sentences passed by a court-martial.
- Death Penalty Nuance: While Article 72 explicitly grants the President the power to grant pardon in all cases of death sentence, the Governor's power under Article 161 is generally understood not to cover the death penalty directly, unless the law itself falls strictly within the State's executive domain and the specific context allows. However, the Governor can suspend, remit, or commute sentences, which might include death sentences in specific state contexts, subject to legal limitations and interpretation. The ultimate authority in death penalty cases typically rests with the President.
Comparison with President's Power (Article 72)
Both the President and the Governor possess pardoning powers, but they differ in scope:
| Feature | President (Article 72) | Governor (Article 161) |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of Law | Offences against any law (Union List, Concurrent List) | Offences against any law relating to matters within State executive power (State List, Concurrent List where State has competence) |
| Court-Martial Offences | Yes | No |
| Death Sentence | Yes, explicit power | Limited/Indirect; subject to State law competence and judicial interpretation; President's power is broader. |
| Consultation | May consult AG; acts on aid/advice of CoM. | Acts on aid/advice of State Council of Ministers. |
Nature of the Power
The pardoning power is:
- Executive, Not Judicial: It is an executive function designed to supplement the judiciary, not to substitute or override it. It allows for mercy, compassion, or correction of judicial errors where the law permits.
- Discretionary, but Guided: While termed discretionary, the Governor typically exercises this power on the **aid and advice of the Council of Ministers** (headed by the Chief Minister). The Governor cannot act arbitrarily or independently, except in rare situations where the Constitution explicitly allows for discretion (which is generally not the case for pardoning powers).
- Mercy-Oriented: The primary purpose is to show mercy, especially in cases involving mitigating circumstances, old age, infirmity, or where there's a miscarriage of justice.
Types of Pardoning Relief
Article 161 enumerates several forms of relief:
- Pardon: Frees the offender completely from punishment and disqualification.
- Commutation: Substituting a punishment for a lighter one (e.g., death sentence to life imprisonment).
- Remission: Reducing the period of a sentence without changing its character (e.g., reducing a 5-year sentence to 4 years).
- Reprieve: Temporary suspension of the execution of a sentence, especially a death sentence, pending further consideration.
- Respite: Awarding a lesser sentence instead of the prescribed one due to some special circumstance (e.g., pregnancy of a woman offender, or severe illness).
Limitations and Judicial Review
The exercise of this power is subject to significant limitations:
- Aid and Advice: The Governor must act based on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Decisions contrary to this advice are constitutionally suspect.
- Rule of Law: The power cannot be used to defeat the course of justice or undermine the rule of law.
- Judicial Scrutiny: While the scope is wide, the Supreme Court has held that the exercise of pardoning power is subject to judicial review. The court can examine the decision if it is found to be mala fide, arbitrary, illegal, irrational, or passed for extraneous reasons. Landmark cases like Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980) and Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2006) have clarified these principles. The court cannot substitute its own decision but can quash an order passed improperly.
- Legislative Limits: The Governor's power is also subject to any law made by the State Legislature concerning the matter.
Contemporary Issues
The exercise of remission powers by State governments (often involving the Governor acting on advice) has faced scrutiny in recent years. Controversies arise when remissions are granted to convicts in high-profile cases, leading to debates about the balance between mercy, the finality of judicial decisions, and public justice.
Conclusion
<p>In essence, the Governor's power under Article 161 is a vital constitutional mechanism for tempering justice with mercy, applicable strictly within the domain of state executive power. While it provides a necessary avenue for relief and correction, it is not an absolute or arbitrary power. It operates under the significant constraint of acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and remains amenable to judicial review to prevent misuse. Balancing this executive prerogative with the principles of justice and the rule of law remains a critical aspect of governance in India, demanding careful consideration and adherence to constitutional propriety.</p>
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.