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. 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) 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. 1955 0 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). 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437

T. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015)

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. 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. 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1683 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. 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 CrPC Sections 432/433 in scope but respects limits. 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1683

Influenced by US Article II, Section 2, it emphasizes public welfare over private favor. 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437 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. 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 mala fides. 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 477 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. 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 || Kehar Singh v. Union of India (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 remission types. 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1683 || Swamy Shraddananda (upheld in Union of India v. V. Sriharan) | 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.

Grounds for Intervention

Courts may intervene on:1. Mala fides/irrelevant material: Extraneous factors like political loyalty. 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. 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

Challenges and Safeguards

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 CrPC Sections 432/433 must align with Article 72, barring lifers under Section 433A without 14 years served. 2010 0 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. 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 437- Limited review: Mala fides 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