AI Thinking...

Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!

Scanned Judgements…!

AI Overview...

Growth of Pardoning Power in India - Main Points and Insights
The pardoning power in India is constitutionally vested in the President under Article 72 and in the Governors under Article 161, recognized as an act of grace and humanity ["T. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)"] ["Epuru Sudhakar VS Govt. of A. P. - Supreme Court"].
Historically, the power has evolved from royal prerogatives to constitutional provisions, with the Constitution explicitly delineating this authority to prevent arbitrary exercise and to ensure it aligns with constitutional principles ["In Re Popular Bank Ltd. VS . - 1958 0 Supreme(Ker) 176"] ["D. Ethiraj VS Secretary to Government, Chennai - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1683"].
The Supreme Court has clarified that the President's pardoning power is a high prerogative and is subject to judicial review, especially when exercised in a manner inconsistent with constitutional safeguards ["T. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)"] ["T. MOHAMMED ASHRAF VS STATE OF KERALA - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437"] ["Mother of the condemned prisoner vs The State - Gujarat"].
The power is considered absolute but must be exercised within the framework of constitutional guidelines, and it is not subject to legislative limitations that could restrict its scope ["D. Ethiraj VS Secretary to Government, Chennai - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1683"].
Over time, the manifestation of this power has been diluted, but it remains a vital executive function, with judicial oversight ensuring it is not exercised arbitrarily ["Epuru Sudhakar VS Govt. of A. P. - Supreme Court"].
The exercise of pardon powers has been linked to the broader constitutional scheme, emphasizing that such powers are to be used as acts of mercy, not as arbitrary acts, and are influenced by the circumstances of each case ["Indian Spinners Association VS Designated Authority, Ministry of Finance - Custom Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal"] ["S. A. Miyajan VS Union of India - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 264"].
Judicial decisions have reinforced that the power is unfettered but must be exercised with due regard to constitutional principles, and courts have historically refrained from interfering in the President's exercise of this power unless procedural irregularities are evident ["PETER JAMES GIFRAN VON KALKESTEIN BLEACH VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2002 0 Supreme(Cal) 629"] ["Jagir Singh VS State Of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"].
Analysis and Conclusion
The growth graph of the pardoning power of the President of India demonstrates a transition from royal prerogative to a constitutionally defined executive power, with increasing judicial scrutiny over time. The power remains a significant constitutional prerogative, exercised as an act of grace, but its scope and exercise are now guided by constitutional and legal principles to prevent misuse.
The main insight is that while the power is broad and absolute in theory, it is subject to checks, including judicial review, ensuring it aligns with the constitutional framework and principles of justice and mercy ["T. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)"].
The evolution reflects a conscious effort to balance mercy and justice, emphasizing that the power should not be exercised arbitrarily but within a structured and constitutional context, with courts acting as arbiters to prevent abuse ["- Madras"].
Overall, the growth of the pardoning power signifies its importance as a tool of executive clemency, with its exercise increasingly scrutinized to uphold constitutional values and prevent potential misuse.

Evolution of President's Pardoning Power in India

The pardoning power of the President of India stands as a cornerstone of constitutional mercy, balancing justice with humanity. Often queried as the growth graph of pardoning power of President of India, this prerogative has evolved from English common law roots through key judicial interpretations, shaping its modern contours under Article 72. This blog delves into its historical development, nature, scope, and the limited judicial oversight, drawing from landmark cases and precedents. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.

Historical Origins and Growth

The pardoning power traces its lineage to English common law prerogatives, adapted via the Government of India Act, 1935 (Section 295), and enshrined in Article 72 post-independence. T. MOHAMMED ASHRAF VS STATE OF KERALA - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437 T. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)S. A. Miyajan VS Union of India - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 264 Constituent Assembly debates distinguished it from absolute royal mercy, positioning it as part of India's constitutional scheme for public welfare. MIRZA MOHAMMAD HUSAYN VS STATE OF U P - 2001 0 Supreme(All) 949 Maru Ram: Bhimwa Ram: Shanker: Krishna: Raghubir Singh: Rampuja Singh: Nirbhai Singh: Balkrishan Gupta: Veny Singh: Babulal Gautam: Om Prakash: Nagebhushanam Patnaik: Raghunath Singh: Jagir Singh: Ajit Singh: Munshi Ram: Faqir Singh: Janardhan: Sunder Ram VS Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: State Of Punjab: State Of Punjab: Union Of Indi - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 477

Early manifestations highlight its evolution. For instance, historical parallels note that every civilized country recognizes, and has therefore provided for, the pardoning power to be exercised as an act of grace and humanity in proper cases. Epuru Sudhakar VS Govt. of A. P. Over time, this power vested in the President (Article 72) and Governors (Article 161), overriding pre-Constitution relics like the Maharaja of Cochin's powers under Article 21 of the Covenant, which did not survive the Constitution. The court held: The powers of suspension, remission or commutation of death sentence reserved in the Maharaja of Cochin under Art.21 of the Covenant did not outlive the passing of the Constitution of India. Variath VS State - 1955 Supreme(Ker) 71

This growth graph reflects a shift from monarchical grace to executive discretion guided by ministerial advice, tempered by judicial review to prevent arbitrariness.

Nature and Scope of Article 72

Article 72(1) empowers the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions; suspend, remit, or commute sentences for court-martial offenses (a), Union law violations (b), and death sentences (c). T. MOHAMMED ASHRAF VS STATE OF KERALA - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437 T. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das VS Union of India - 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 337 Exercised on the Council of Ministers' aid and advice, it serves as a mercy valve, correcting injustices or undue harshness. As articulated in Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P.: A pardon in our days is not a private act of grace... It is a part of the constitutional scheme. T. MOHAMMED ASHRAF VS STATE OF KERALA - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437 T. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)

Key attributes include:- Plenary yet non-arbitrary: Unfettered by legislation but guided by public good, convict reformation, and Section 433A CrPC as a provisional guideline. D. Ethiraj VS Secretary to Government, Chennai - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1683 Maru Ram: Bhimwa Ram: Shanker: Krishna: Raghubir Singh: Rampuja Singh: Nirbhai Singh: Balkrishan Gupta: Veny Singh: Babulal Gautam: Om Prakash: Nagebhushanam Patnaik: Raghunath Singh: Jagir Singh: Ajit Singh: Munshi Ram: Faqir Singh: Janardhan: Sunder Ram VS Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: State Of Punjab: State Of Punjab: Union Of Indi - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 477- Post-judicial: Operates after finality, allowing fresh evidence scrutiny without altering judicial records. Kehar Singh v. Union of India clarified: President acts on a wholly different plane from judicial power. Tiger Muthiah VS The State of Tamil Nadu and others - 1999 0 Supreme(Mad) 2745 Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das VS Union of India - 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 337- Conditional pardons: Allowed, with conditions accepted wholly by convicts. Radhakrishnan VS Union of India Rep By Secretary To Government, Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2140- Unaffected by ordinary laws: Overrides CrPC Sections 432/433 in scope but respects limits. D. Ethiraj VS Secretary to Government, Chennai - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1683

Influenced by US Article II, Section 2, it emphasizes public welfare over private favor. T. MOHAMMED ASHRAF VS STATE OF KERALA - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437 MIRZA MOHAMMAD HUSAYN VS STATE OF U P - 2001 0 Supreme(All) 949

Judicial Review: Limited but Essential

The power is not absolute; judicial review ensures constitutionality without probing merits. Courts cannot substitute opinions on pardon desirability but check for extraneous factors. Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das VS Union of India - 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 337 Tiger Muthiah VS The State of Tamil Nadu and others - 1999 0 Supreme(Mad) 2745 In Maru Ram v. Union of India, review was confined to whether the act falls within power or is tainted by mala fides. Maru Ram: Bhimwa Ram: Shanker: Krishna: Raghubir Singh: Rampuja Singh: Nirbhai Singh: Balkrishan Gupta: Veny Singh: Babulal Gautam: Om Prakash: Nagebhushanam Patnaik: Raghunath Singh: Jagir Singh: Ajit Singh: Munshi Ram: Faqir Singh: Janardhan: Sunder Ram VS Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: State Of Punjab: State Of Punjab: Union Of Indi - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 477 Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das VS Union of India - 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 337

From other contexts, like Kerala High Court rulings: Judicial review of Presidential pardon under Article 72 is limited to ensuring legality, not to evaluate the decision's merits. T MOHAMMED ASHRAF vs STATE OF KERALA - 2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12329 This upholds balance, as the President rejects petitions after considering state reports. T MOHAMMED ASHRAF vs STATE OF KERALA - 2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12329

Landmark Cases Shaping the Power

| Case | Key Holdings ||------|--------------|| Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. (2006) | Review for mala fides, irrelevance, non-application of mind; public welfare focus. T. MOHAMMED ASHRAF VS STATE OF KERALA - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437 T. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015) || Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) | Immune from legislative curbs like Sec. 433A; needs guidelines. D. Ethiraj VS Secretary to Government, Chennai - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1683 Maru Ram: Bhimwa Ram: Shanker: Krishna: Raghubir Singh: Rampuja Singh: Nirbhai Singh: Balkrishan Gupta: Veny Singh: Babulal Gautam: Om Prakash: Nagebhushanam Patnaik: Raghunath Singh: Jagir Singh: Ajit Singh: Munshi Ram: Faqir Singh: Janardhan: Sunder Ram VS Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: State Of Punjab: State Of Punjab: Union Of Indi - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 477 || Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989) | Independent merits re-examination; no merits review. Tiger Muthiah VS The State of Tamil Nadu and others - 1999 0 Supreme(Mad) 2745 Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das VS Union of India - 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 337 || Narayan Dutt v. State of Punjab (2011) | Upholds if reasons provided. Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das VS Union of India - 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 337 || State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh (2000) | Distinguishes remission types. D. Ethiraj VS Secretary to Government, Chennai - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1683 || Swamy Shraddananda (upheld in Union of India v. V. Sriharan) | Courts' special sentences; Article 72 superior. Radhakrishnan VS Union of India Rep By Secretary To Government, Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2140 |

In Epuru Sudhakar, Justice Pasayat outlined review grounds: (a) that the order has been passed without application of mind; (b) that the order is mala fide; (c) that the order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations. Epuru Sudhakar VS Govt. of A. P.

Grounds for Intervention

Courts may intervene on:1. Mala fides/irrelevant material: Extraneous factors like political loyalty. Akshay Kumar Singh VS Union of India - 2020 3 Supreme 590 In one case, reports citing good Congress Worker status vitiated remission. Epuru Sudhakar VS Govt. of A. P.2. Non-application of mind: Mechanical decisions. Akshay Kumar Singh VS Union of India - 2020 3 Supreme 5903. Oblique purposes: Frustrating deterrence. MIRZA MOHAMMAD HUSAYN VS STATE OF U P - 2001 0 Supreme(All) 9494. Fraud: Limited inquiry. PETER JAMES GIFRAN VON KALKESTEIN BLEACH VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2002 0 Supreme(Cal) 6295. Constitutional violation: Scope limits. T. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)

Irrelevant: Newspaper influence or family pleas. No fixed timelines for petitions. Akshay Kumar Singh VS Union of India - 2020 3 Supreme 590 S. A. Miyajan VS Union of India - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 264

Challenges and Safeguards

Arbitrariness claims fail due to case-specific nature; presumed proper. S. A. Miyajan VS Union of India - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 264 Victim interests matter but yield to mercy. Tiger Muthiah VS The State of Tamil Nadu and others - 1999 0 Supreme(Mad) 2745 Political abuse addressable via impeachment. MIRZA MOHAMMAD HUSAYN VS STATE OF U P - 2001 0 Supreme(All) 949 US analogies affirm discretion with review for validity. Radhakrishnan VS Union of India Rep By Secretary To Government, Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2140

Premature releases under CrPC Sections 432/433 must align with Article 72, barring lifers under Section 433A without 14 years served. GURU PRASAD VS STATE OF U. P. - 2010 Supreme(All) 4074

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

The pardoning power's evolution under Article 72 reflects a mature balance: expansive mercy checked by narrow judicial review. From common law to Supreme Court refinements, it tempers justice with equity. Key takeaways:- Broad scope but public-welfare guided. T. MOHAMMED ASHRAF VS STATE OF KERALA - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437- Limited review: Mala fides only, not merits. Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das VS Union of India - 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 337- Evolving via precedents: Ensures non-arbitrariness.

This framework upholds India's democratic ethos, inviting mercy without undermining justice. For case-specific queries, seek professional advice.

#PardoningPower #Article72 #IndianConstitution

Thompson v. Barr

Furthermore, in Matter of Nolan, the BIA "recognized the fact that in some instances, the supreme pardoning power may rest with an executive or executive body other than the President of the United States or the Governor of a state." 19 I. & N. Dec. at 542 (citing Matter of Tajer, 15 I. & N. ... Dec. at 339 (accepting a pardon from the United States High Commissioner for Germany, notwithstanding that the pardoning power was derived from an executive order). ... Therefore, it reasoned that "....

Epuru Sudhakar VS Govt. of A. P.

History of pardoning power. Every civilized country recognizes, and has therefore provided for, the pardoning power to be exercised as an act of grace and humanity in proper cases. ... Union of India and Ors. ... Over the years, the manifestation of this power got diluted. 62. The power to grant pardons and reprieves in India is vested in the President and the Governor of a State by virtue of Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution ....

Epuru Sudhakar VS Govt. of A. P. - 2006 7 Supreme 539

History of pardoning power. ... Every civilized country recognizes, and has therefore provided for, the pardoning power to be exercised as an act of grace and humanity in proper cases. ... Union of India and Ors. ... Over the years, the manifestation of this power got diluted. ... 62. The power to grant pardons and reprieves in India is vested in the President and the Governor of a State by virtue of Articles 72 and 161 of the Const....

Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das VS Union of India - 2019 Supreme(UK) 337

It is relevant to submit at this stage itself that (1) after the dismissal of Jail Appeal No.108/2010 by the judgment dated 19.9.2001 by the Division Bench of this Court, and affirming of the death sentence imposed by learned Trial Court on 12.04.2001, (2) after the dismissal of SLP by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 5.12.2002, (3) After dismissal of review petition by Hon'ble Apex Court on 04.03.2003, (4) after the dismissal of Writ Petition (Crl.) by Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on 16.02.2005, and (5) after the rejection of Curative Petition by the Hon'ble Ape....

D. Ethiraj VS Secretary to Government, Chennai - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 1683

In Maru Ram's case [(1981) 1 SCC 107], the constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the observation that it does only restrict the operation of Section 432 and Section 433(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of a limited category of convicts within the legislative competence of the parliament has also observed that the pardoning power of the President and the Governor under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India cannot be affected by the ordinary legislation so as to cu....

GURU PRASAD VS STATE OF U. P. - 2010 Supreme(All) 4074

Under Section 433 Cr.P.C. the power has been conferred upon the appropriate Government to commute sentence of death to any other punishment and sentence of imprisonment for life to that for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. 7. Article 72 of the Constitution of India confers power to the President of India to grant pardon and Article 161 of the Constitution of India confers power upon the Governor to grant pardon. Under Article 432 Cr.P.C. the appropriate Government has power to suspend or remit whole or any part of imprisonment.