Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
T. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)
"] ["2006 7 Supreme 539"].T. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)
"] ["2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437"] ["1990 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 2"].Indian Spinners Association VS Designated Authority, Ministry of Finance - Custom Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
"] ["2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 264"].T. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)
"].
The of the President of India stands as a cornerstone of , balancing justice with humanity. Often queried as the growth graph of of President of India, this prerogative has evolved from 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.
The traces its lineage to prerogatives, adapted via the , and enshrined in Article 72 post-independence. 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437
T. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)
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. 2001 0 Supreme(All) 949 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 477Early manifestations highlight its evolution. For instance, historical parallels note that every civilized country recognizes, and has therefore provided for, the 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 (), overriding pre-Constitution relics like the Maharaja of Cochin's powers under , which did not survive the Constitution. The court held: The powers of suspension, or of reserved in the Maharaja of Cochin under Art.21 of the Covenant did not outlive the passing of the Constitution of India. 1955 0 Supreme(Ker) 71This growth graph reflects a shift from monarchical grace to executive discretion guided by ministerial advice, tempered by to prevent arbitrariness.
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). 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437
T. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)
2019 0 Supreme(UK) 337 Exercised on the ' 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. 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437T. 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 as a provisional guideline. 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1683 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 477- Post-judicial: Operates after finality, allowing fresh evidence scrutiny without altering judicial records. clarified: President acts on a wholly different plane from judicial power. 1999 0 Supreme(Mad) 2745 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 337- Conditional pardons: Allowed, with conditions accepted wholly by convicts. 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2140- Unaffected by ordinary laws: Overrides in scope but respects limits. 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1683
Influenced by , it emphasizes public welfare over private favor. 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437 2001 0 Supreme(All) 949
The power is not absolute; ensures constitutionality without probing merits. Courts cannot substitute opinions on pardon desirability but check for extraneous factors. 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 337 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 . 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 477 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 337
From other contexts, like rulings: 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
| Case | Key Holdings ||------|--------------|| Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. (2006) | Review for , irrelevance, ; public welfare focus. 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. 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1683 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 477 || (1989) | Independent merits re-examination; no merits review. 1999 0 Supreme(Mad) 2745 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 337 || Narayan Dutt v. State of Punjab (2011) | Upholds if reasons provided. 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 337 || State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh (2000) | Distinguishes types. 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1683 || (upheld in ) | Courts' special sentences; Article 72 superior. 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.
Courts may intervene on:1. /irrelevant material: Extraneous factors like political loyalty. 2020 3 Supreme 590 In one case, reports citing good Congress Worker status vitiated .
Epuru Sudhakar VS Govt. of A. P.
2. : Mechanical decisions. 2020 3 Supreme 5903. Oblique purposes: Frustrating deterrence. 2001 0 Supreme(All) 9494. Fraud: Limited inquiry. 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. 2020 3 Supreme 590 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 264
Arbitrariness claims fail due to case-specific nature; presumed proper. 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 264 Victim interests matter but yield to mercy. 1999 0 Supreme(Mad) 2745 Political abuse addressable via impeachment. 2001 0 Supreme(All) 949 US analogies affirm discretion with review for validity. 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2140
Premature releases under must align with Article 72, barring lifers under Section 433A without 14 years served. 2010 0 Supreme(All) 4074
The 's evolution under Article 72 reflects a mature balance: expansive mercy checked by narrow . From common law to refinements, it tempers justice with equity. Key takeaways:- Broad scope but public-welfare guided. 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437- Limited review: only, not merits. 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
If therefore it can be gathered that the President of the United States can grant a pardon before a conviction it stands to reason that the appropriate authority in India exercising; powers under provisions similarly worded must have that power. ... Benz,5 in dealing, with the point whether a Court has got power to amend a sentence of imprisonment during the term of Court in which it was imposed, by shortening it and whether such course would trench upon the pardoning power of the #HL_....
It is submitted that the President of India in exercise of the power under Article 72 of the Constitution of India has rejected the petition of the petitioner for pardoning after considering all relevant aspects including the report received from the State Government. ... Power given to the President of India under Article 72 is high prerogative power conferred on the head of the State which is part of the Constitutional Scheme. The Apex Court in Epu....
It is submitted that the President of India in exercise of the power under Article 72 of the Constitution of India has rejected the petition of the petitioner for pardoning after considering all relevant aspects including the report received from the State Government. ... Power given to the President of India under Article 72 is high prerogative power conferred on the head of the State which is part of the Constitutional Scheme. The Apex Court in Ep....
It is submitted that the President of India in exercise of the power under Article 72 of the Constitution of India has rejected the petition of the petitioner for pardoning after considering all relevant aspects including the report received from the State Government. ... Power given to the President of India under Article 72 is high prerogative power conferred on the head of the State which is part of the Constitutional Scheme. The Apex Court in Epu....
The Constitution does not bestow any pardoning power on the Maharaja of Cochin. Art.72 and Art.161 and Art.238, which deal with pardoning power do not allow the Maharaja of Cochin to exercise any such power in respect of any matter. ... (a), (b) and (c) thereof the President 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. ... Mercy petitions file....
Act grants the Central or State Government the power to grant immunity to an accomplice before or during a trial. ... Act & Section 306 Cr.P.C are entirely distinguishable and the safeguards provided under section 306 of the Cr.P.C. are not applicable for pardoning immunity under section 64 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Section 64 of the N.D.P.S. ... It is further contended that it is not necessary to apply before the trial Court/ or Magistrate for pardoning an offender under Section 64 of the N.D.P.S. Act, as the Central Government or the State G....
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 339 (accepting a pardon from the United States High Commissioner for Germany, notwithstanding that the pardoning power was derived from an executive order). ... The BIA recognized the colonial origin of Connecticut's pardon....
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 "....
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 ....
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....
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....
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....
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
