Power of Mercy Petition - The power to entertain mercy petitions is exclusively conferred on the Constitutional Authority, specifically the Governor under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution. Such power cannot be exercised by any other executive authority within the State, ensuring a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary exercise of mercy powers ["V. Selvaraj VS Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department - Madras"] ["Prasanna Gunasundari VS Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai - Madras"].
Limitations on Mercy Powers - The courts have emphasized that any authority other than the Governor, such as administrative or review authorities, attempting to entertain or grant mercy relief, results in improper or unconstitutional exercise of power. For instance, the rejection of mercy petitions by authorities like the Additional Director General of Police was highlighted as an improper exercise ["V. Selvaraj VS Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department - Madras"].
Judicial Review and Merits of Mercy Petitions - Courts have clarified that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 does not extend to assessing the merits or the correctness of mercy petitions or the nature of criminal cases pending against an individual. Instead, courts focus on procedural compliance and constitutional authority limits, especially the delay or procedural lapses affecting personal liberty ["Vasanta Sampat Dupare VS Union Of India - Supreme Court"] ["Nirmala VS Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"].
Article 226 and Habeas Corpus - In habeas corpus cases, courts exercise their power under Article 226 to scrutinize detention orders mainly for procedural irregularities, such as delay in considering representations, which violate the detained person's right to personal liberty under Article 21. The courts do not evaluate the gravity of criminal cases but ensure procedural adherence and constitutional limits are maintained ["Samundeeswari VS Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"] ["Valli VS Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"] ["R. Arachelvi VS Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu - Madras"] ["Russia VS Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"] ["Russia VS Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department - Madras"] ["Ammu VS State of Tamil Nadu - Madras"] ["Suganthi VS State of Tamil Nadu - Madras"] ["Malathi VS Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"] ["Jothi VS Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"] ["Punitha VS Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"] ["Malaiyandi VS State of Tamil Nadu - Madras"].
Procedural Rigidity and Safeguards - The courts underscore that every procedural requirement, especially in cases of preventive detention, must be strictly followed. Any lapse, such as delay in considering representations, leads to infringement of the detainee’s constitutional rights, rendering detention orders liable to be quashed ["Samundeeswari VS Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"] ["Valli VS Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"] ["R. Arachelvi VS Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu - Madras"] ["Russia VS Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"] ["Russia VS Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department - Madras"] ["Ammu VS State of Tamil Nadu - Madras"] ["Suganthi VS State of Tamil Nadu - Madras"] ["Malathi VS Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"] ["Jothi VS Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"] ["Punitha VS Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"] ["Malaiyandi VS State of Tamil Nadu - Madras"].
Overall Conclusion - The judiciary maintains a clear distinction between the exercise of the power of mercy, which is constitutionally vested solely in the Governor, and the scope of judicial review under Article 226. While courts can scrutinize procedural compliance and constitutional boundaries, they do not assess the substantive merits of mercy petitions or the criminal cases themselves. This approach preserves the rigidity of law while allowing the tempering of its harshness through constitutional mercy powers, ensuring that executive actions remain within legal bounds ["V. Selvaraj VS Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department - Madras"] ["Vasanta Sampat Dupare VS Union Of India - Supreme Court"] ["Prasanna Gunasundari VS Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai - Madras"].
References:- ["V. Selvaraj VS Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department - Madras"]- ["Vasanta Sampat Dupare VS Union Of India - Supreme Court"]- ["Prasanna Gunasundari VS Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai - Madras"]- ["Nirmala VS Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"]- ["Makibur Rahman S/o Late Soukat Ali VS Union of India - Gauhati"]- ["Balwant Singh VS Union of India - Supreme Court"]- ["Samundeeswari VS Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"]- ["Valli VS Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"]- ["R. Arachelvi VS Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu - Madras"]- ["Russia VS Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"]- ["Russia VS Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department - Madras"]- ["Ammu VS State of Tamil Nadu - Madras"]- ["Suganthi VS State of Tamil Nadu - Madras"]- ["Malathi VS Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"]- ["Jothi VS Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"]- ["Punitha VS Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - Madras"]- ["Malaiyandi VS State of Tamil Nadu - Madras"]
