Under Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution:
1. The President has the power to grant pardons for offences under laws made by the Union and Concurrent Lists as well as for death sentences, while Governors have this power only for offences under State laws.
2. Both the President and Governors have concurrent power to suspend, remit, or commute death sentences.
3. While the President's pardoning powers are wide, the Supreme Court has held that they are subject to judicial review and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or for reasons of caste, politics, or religion.
Under Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution:
1. The President has the power to grant pardons for offences under laws made by the Union and Concurrent Lists as well as for death sentences, while Governors have this power only for offences under State laws.
2. Both the President and Governors have concurrent power to suspend, remit, or commute death sentences.
3. While the President's pardoning powers are wide, the Supreme Court has held that they are subject to judicial review and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or for reasons of caste, politics, or religion.
Under Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution:
1. The President has the power to grant pardons for offences under laws made by the Union and Concurrent Lists as well as for death sentences, while Governors have this power only for offences under State laws.
2. Both the President and Governors have concurrent power to suspend, remit, or commute death sentences.
3. While the President's pardoning powers are wide, the Supreme Court has held that they are subject to judicial review and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or for reasons of caste, politics, or religion.
Under Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution:
1. The President has the power to grant pardons for offences under laws made by the Union and Concurrent Lists as well as for death sentences, while Governors have this power only for offences under State laws.
2. Both the President and Governors have concurrent power to suspend, remit, or commute death sentences.
3. While the President's pardoning powers are wide, the Supreme Court has held that they are subject to judicial review and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or for reasons of caste, politics, or religion.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
POWERS OF PRESIDENT AND GOVERNOR
Under Art. 72, the President has power to grant pardon,
reprieve, respite or remission of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence to any person convicted of an offence (i) in cases where the punishment is by Court Martial, (ii) for offences against laws made under Union and Concurrent Lists - matters to which executive power of Union extends, (iii) for death sentences. Art. 72 further lays down that the power conferred on the President, however, does not affect the power conferred by any law on any officer of the Armed Forces to suspend, remit, or commute a sentence passed by Court Martial, and also the power exercisable by the Governor of State under any law to suspend, remit, or commute a death sentence. It may be noted that the British King and the U.S. President also possess such judicial powers. Under Art. 161, the Governor has such power only for offences relating to matters to which executive power of State extends; he cannot pardon for (i) and (iii) above. In respect of suspension, remit or to commute death sentence, both President and Governor have concurrent power. In Kuljeet Singh v Lt. Governor o f Delhi (AIR 1982 SC 774), held that the exercise of President’s power would have to be examined' from case to case. It is submitted that to examine case-to-case implies court’s ‘judicial review' on a matter which has been vested by Constitution solely in the executive. The question of standards and guidelines for the exercise of the. power by the President under Art. 72 however, were left open by the Court. In Kehar Singh v UOI (AIR 1989 SC 653), regarding the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the President rejected the petition on advice of Union government without going into the merits of Supreme Court’s decision of death sentence. The court held that a pardon is an act of grace and therefore it can’t be demanded as a matter of right. The Court need not spell out specific guidelines for the exercise of power... because this power is of the ‘widest amplitude' and can contemplate a myriad kinds of cases with varying facts. The order of President cannot be subjected to judicial review on its merits. In Epuru Sudhakar v Govt, o f Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2006 SC 3385), the Apex Court has held that the pardoning powers of the President under Art. 72, and, the Governors under Art. 161 are subject to judicial review. Pardoning power cannot be exercised arbitrarily on the basis of caste or political reasons. It held that if the pardoning power has been exercised on the ground of political reasons, caste and religious considerations it would amount to violation of the Constitution and the Court will examine its validity.