In the spirit of the 550th birth anniversary celebrations of Sikhism founder, Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the Indian President recently made a humanitarian gesture. This involved commuting the death sentence of an accused individual who had been convicted for the assassination of the former Punjab Chief Minister. It’s worth mentioning that over the last nine years, the President has commuted at least 20 death sentences to life imprisonment, as indicated by the Ministry of Home Affairs’ recommendations.
Article 72 of the Constitution grants the President the authority to grant pardons to individuals who have been tried and convicted of any offence.
Understandings Pardoning Powers of the President
Under Article 72, the President has 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. Here’s a brief meaning of these terms:
1. Pardon: This action completely absolves the convict from all sentences, punishments, and disqualifications.
2. Commutation: This signifies substituting a severe form of punishment with a milder one.
3. Remission: This refers to reducing the period of the sentence without altering its character.
4. Respite: This implies granting a lesser sentence due to a special fact, such as the physical disability of a convict or the pregnancy of a woman offender.
5. Reprieve: This means a temporary stay of the execution of a sentence. Its purpose is to give the convicted person time to seek pardon or commutation from the President.
The Procedure and Purpose of Granting Pardon
The journey to receiving a pardon starts with filing a mercy petition with the President under the umbrella of Article 72. This petition is then sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for consideration and the concerned state government is consulted. Recommendations are then made by the Home Minister, and the petition is returned to the President.
Granting a pardon serves a dual role: to correct potential judicial errors and to provide relief from an unduly harsh sentence. This might significantly help in saving an innocent person from being punished due to miscarriage of justice or cases of doubtful conviction.
Judicial Stand on Pardoning Powers
In the Maru Ram v Union of India case (1980), the Supreme Court of India held that the power under Article 72 is to be exercised on the advice of the Central Government, not at the President’s discretion. The advice of the Government is binding. In the Epuru Sudhakar v Ors. case (2006), the Supreme Court upheld that clemency granted by the President can be challenged in court on several grounds such as mala fide, no application of mind, or relevant material kept out of consideration, among others.
Comparison: Pardoning Powers of the President and the Governor
| President | Governor | |
|---|---|---|
| Pardoning power in cases of Court Martial | Yes | No |
| Pardoning power in cases of death sentence | Yes | No |
Difference Between Pardoning Powers of President and Governor
The pardoning power’s scope under Article 72 is more comprehensive compared to the pardoning power of the Governor under Article 161. This is evident in two primary aspects: granting pardon in cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial and in death sentence cases. The power of the President extends to these scenarios, but the same does not apply for the Governor.
