The Indian Constitution bestows upon the President the power to pardon under Article 72. Similarly, Governors also possess the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment under Article 161. These powers allow both the President and the Governor to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of an offence.
However, the application of these powers, particularly in the context of attaining “complete justice” as envisaged by the Supreme Court under Article 142, has recently been in focus. The release of A.G. Perarivalan, involved in former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination case, stands as a case in point where the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers to enforce justice.
Details of the Supreme Court’s Decision
In 2018, the Tamil Nadu Council of Ministers advised the pardon of Perarivalan which, under Article 161, was binding on the Governor. However, the Governor’s delay in action led the Supreme Court to employ its constitutional powers under Article 142. The Court rejected the argument that only the President had the power to grant pardons in murder cases, asserting that such contention risked invalidating pardons granted by Governors in murder cases over the past 70 years.
Article 142: Definition and Application
Article 142 provides the Supreme Court with discretionary power to make orders necessary for doing complete justice in any matter before them. This has seen use in various instances where the court aimed to ensure justice for deprived sections of society or protect the environment. However, controversy has surrounded its application; when decisions ventured into territories traditionally regulated by the legislative branch, concerns about judicial overreach surfaced.
Cases of Controversy: Alcohol Sale Ban and Article 142
A notable instance of such controversy was when the Supreme Court extended a central government ban on liquor stores along National Highways to state highways. Invoking Article 142, the court also imposed a 500-metre distance rule. These decisions prompted uncertainty around the court’s jurisdiction, as they appeared to overlook certain fundamental rights of individuals.
Possible Improvements: Regulation and Review of Article 142
To address these issues, some propose stricter guidelines for invoking Article 142. Another suggestion is to have all such cases reviewed by a Constitution Bench of at least five judges. Furthermore, a government-issued report evaluating the effects of judgments made under Article 142 could assist in better understanding the article’s practical implications.
Understanding Pardoning Powers: Article 72
Under Article 72, the President has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, and remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of an offence. These powers are further described as follows:
– Pardon: This absolves the convict from all sentences, punishments, and disqualifications.
– Commutation: This substitutes one form of punishment with a lighter one.
– Remission: This reduces the period of the sentence without altering its nature.
– Respite: This awards a lesser sentence because of special factors like the physical disability or pregnancy of an offender.
– Reprieve: This temporarily delays the execution of a sentence.
In summary, the President and Governors’ power to pardon, powered by Articles 72 and 161, plays an essential role in India’s justice system. Although controversial at times, the application of these powers and the pursuit of complete justice under Article 142 remains a key aspect of maintaining fairness and equity in India’s law enforcement and judicial processes.
