BENCH: HON’BLE JUSTICE "ARIJIT PASAYAT" & JUSTICE S.H KAPADIA

INTRODUCTION -

The process of granting a pardon in India begins with the submission of a mercy petition to the President under Article 72 of the Constitution. The petition is initially reviewed by the Home Ministry, which consults with the relevant state government. Following the Home Minister's recommendations, the petition is forwarded to the President for consideration.

The authority to grant pardons is an integral part of the constitutional framework. Article 72 empowers the President to pardon, reprieve, respite, or remit punishments, as well as to suspend, reduce, or commute sentences for individuals convicted of offenses. The exercise of this power is guided by the Council of Ministers to prevent its misuse. Similarly, Article 161 of the Constitution grants the Governor of a state comparable powers to pardon individuals convicted of offenses under laws related to matters within the state's executive authority.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE -

The writ petition has been filed inter alia alleging that the grant of remission (described in the writ petition as grant of pardon) was illegal, relevant materials were not placed before the Governor, and without application of mind impugned order was passed. The recommendations made for grant of remission were based on irrelevant and extraneous materials. The factual scenario has not been placed before the Governor in the proper perspective. The sole basis on which respondent No.3 asked for pardon was alleged implication in false cases due to political rivalry. In view of this Court’s judgment holding the respondent No.2 guilty, the said plea could not have been even considered as a basis for grant of pardon. Since the grant of pardon is based on consideration of irrelevant materials and non-consideration of relevant materials the same is liable to be set aside.

Facts of the case-

In this case, respondent (congress worker) murdered the fathers of both petitioners and ordered 10 years rigorous imprisonment under section 302 read with section 109 of IPC by Andhra Pradesh HC.

Later on, an application for parole was filed before the governor of state and they were granted remission of the unexpired sentence under article 161 of the constitution.

A petition was filed before SC against the grant of remission and alleged that it was illegal, without application of mind; no relevant material was placed before the governor.

 

Issues raised -

The issues presented before the Supreme Court of India in this case were as follows-

1. Whether judicial review can be exercised to supersede the presidential pardon?

2. What is the extent of the power of governor or president, as far as their pardoning power is concerned, is it an absolute power?

3. What are the limitations that can be imposed on this power?

4. What are the responsibilities of the governor or president while exercising this pardoning power under Indian constitution?

ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT SIDE -

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the congressional activist who was convicted by the then governor of Andhra Pradesh, Sushil Kumar Shinde’s sentence immunity was illegal because the relevant materials were not submitted to the governor and the controversial order was Adopted under consideration.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE -

The learned counsel for the defendant and defendants 2 and 3 strongly argued that the petition was the result of political retaliation. The Governor has considered all relevant materials, and the Governor is the high-level constitutional authority that approves the order to grant referrals. The petitioner allegedly confuses pardons and sentence reductions. This case has materials to be forwarded, and this hospital should not intervene. In view of the limited scope of judicial review, the order application should be rejected.

The learned counsel for the defendant on the other hand, argued that although in Maru Ram v. Union of India & Others [1981 (1) SCC 107][1], the court had already pointed out certain advisory guidelines, they argued in Kehar Singh and Another v Union of No acceptance was found in India and another [1989 (1) SCC 204].

Judgement of the case -

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while delivering the landmark judgement highlighted the cases in which the principle of judicial review becomes undeniable and has to be granted. The order of the President or the Governor under Article 72 or Article 161 respectively can be judicially reviewed on the following grounds:

• If the order which has been passed is of such nature that it is without the application of mind;

• In cases when the order is mala fide in nature;

• When the order has been passed but it is based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations only;

• When the relevant materials were present but one not taken into consideration; or

• In cases when the order is full of arbitrariness.

It was also held that the High court can quash governor pardoning power if it was exercised on political ground or caste or religious consideration. Granting of clemency by the President or

Governor can be challenged if the order has been passed without application of mind, mala fide, extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations, suffers from arbitrariness, and relevant material has been kept out of consideration.

CONCLUSION -

Mercy petitions are complex process but also offer potential benefits and sometimes cause hardship when delays occur in processing them. These delays impact both the convicted and the victims, unintentionally hindering justice and prolonging the victim’s suffering. To ensure a more efficient legal system, clear time limits and policies are needed to prevent unnecessary delays in both filing and granting mercy petitions. In this case, the order granting remission which is impugned in the petition is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. However, it is open to the respondent No.1 to treat the petition as a pending one for the purpose of re-consideration. It shall be open to the Governor to take note of materials placed before him by the functionaries of the State, and also to make such enquiries as considered necessary and relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the relevant factors otherwise.

This landmark case of Epuru Sudhakar and Ors. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh is an important precedent. This case has helped in laying down the foundation that the pardoning powers of the President of the nation as well as the Governor of the State can also be reviewed by the judicial authorities. It also acts as a contributing factor because it ensures that human rights are not violated and that the principles of natural justice are appealed in the nation.

It should be noted that the royal prerogative in today’s time and world does not grant immunity from review because the motto of the present world is to provide justice to all. Therefore, even the pardons, remissions, etc granted by the executive can be checked on by the judiciary, if there is no reasoning supplied by the executive or if such reasoning is not deemed right. Also, the actions of the ministers by way of delegation of power fall within the ambit of judicial review. In today’s time and place, it is necessary to review the power of granting a pardon so as to ensure justice is without any encumbrance and that no one in the society is left unheard.