The writ petitioner, as party-in-person, has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the pardoning power of His Excellency, the President of India, regarding death sentence relating to Article 72(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and quash the same.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner would aver among other things that he is a senior citizen and social worker and he is interested in doing special work affecting the society at large and to suggest ways and means to rectify the mistakes and his primary work is confined for the welfare of the society throughout the country. The petitioner would further aver that on an earlier occasion, he took up a public cause with regard to the abstinence on work by advocates and in this regard, he has filed W.P.No.33028/2007 and this Court, by order dated 01.09.2008, has directed the respondents therein to desist from doing anything which would result in abstinence from courts and the efforts taken by the petitioner was also appreciated.

3. According to the petitioner when an accused involved in a murder case, after full fledged trial, has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and he is liable to be hanged till he is dead and once the said sentence attained finality, it cannot be interfered under the guise of invocation of Article 72(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and it is also violative of preamble of the Constitution as well as in the interest of justice. The petitioner would further contend that no time limit has been prescribed under Article 72(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and no criteria as to how the said power is to be exercised is also provided in the said Article and it may lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the executive, which would ultimately frustrate the penal system. The petitioner also contended that pardoning power under the said Article 72(1)(c) of the Constitution of India cannot take away the powers of the criminal courts and under the guise of said power, death sentence awarded after full fledged trial cannot be modified or commuted and therefore, he has come forward with this writ petition. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition would disclose that the writ petitioner wants this Court to declare that Article 72(1)(c) as ultra vires of the Constitution.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been submitted among other things that the powers of the President under Article 72 of the Constitution, are discretionary and it cannot be taken away by any statutory provision and it cannot be altered, modified or interfered with, in any manner whatsoever by any statutory provision or authority and there is no limitation for the exercise of the said power and consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to quash or review the powers vested with the President under Article 72 of the Constitution. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that consideration of mercy petition involves constitutional process and therefore, it is a time consuming one and hence, it cannot be termed as violative of fundamental rights. Counter affidavit also refers to the report of the Law Commission of India of the year 1967 and it is further stated that no fixed period of delay could be held to make the sentence of death unexecutable and hence no time limit can be prescribed for the disposal of mercy petitions. Reference was also made to Maru Ram's case [(1981) 1 SCC 107] and it is further stated that presidential power acts as a safety value in exceptional cases where the legal system fails to deliver a morally acceptable result and the said power intends to secure public welfare and the pardoning power has become virtually the only way that a sentence, once final, can be reconsidered and, in appropriate cases, reduced. In para 4.7 of the counter affidavit, statistics with regard to mercy