The Pardoning Power is one of the most significant judicial powers of the President. It enables the President to grant relief to convicted persons in appropriate cases. This constitutional power acts as a safeguard against judicial errors, ensures fairness in exceptional circumstances, and allows humanitarian considerations to complement the administration of justice.
What is Pardoning Power?
Pardoning power refers to the constitutional authority of the President to grant mercy, reduce, suspend, remit, commute, or completely pardon the sentence of a convicted person. It does not ordinarily question the judicial verdict but provides relief from the punishment imposed.
The objective is to balance justice with mercy, correct possible judicial mistakes, and consider humanitarian, diplomatic, or public-interest factors.
Pardoning Powers of the President
Under Article 72, the President can exercise the following forms of clemency:
Pardon
- Completely absolves the offender from both conviction and sentence.
- The individual is treated as if the offence had never been committed.
- Applicable even in death sentence cases.
Commutation
- Substitutes one form of punishment with a lighter one.
- Example:
- Death sentence → Life imprisonment
- Rigorous imprisonment → Simple imprisonment
Remission
- Reduces the duration of the sentence without changing its nature.
- Example:
- 10 years imprisonment → 6 years imprisonment.
Respite
- Awards a lesser sentence due to special circumstances such as pregnancy, physical disability, age, or illness.
Reprieve
- Temporarily suspends the execution of a sentence, especially a death sentence.
- It provides time to seek judicial review or mercy.
Pardoning Powers of the President: Principles
The exercise of mercy power is guided by constitutional morality rather than personal discretion.
- Constitutional Power: The power flows directly from Article 72 and forms part of the constitutional scheme.
- Aid and Advice Principle: The President exercises this power on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 74.
- Humanitarian Justice: Mercy may be granted considering age, health, mental condition, social circumstances, or rehabilitation.
- Correcting Judicial Errors: Serves as the final constitutional safeguard against possible miscarriage of justice.
- Public Interest: National security, diplomatic considerations, or broader public interest may also influence the decision.
- Subject to Judicial Review: Though the decision is executive in nature, courts may review it if exercised arbitrarily, mala fide, or based on irrelevant considerations.
Constitutional Provisions
Article 72: The President may grant pardon, reprieve, respite, remission, suspend, remit or commute punishment in the following cases:
(A) Court-Martial Cases: The President can grant clemency for punishments awarded by military courts.
(B) Union Law Cases: Where punishment relates to offences against laws under the executive power of the Union.
(C) Death Sentence Cases: The President alone has the power to pardon, commute, remit or suspend every death sentence, irrespective of whether the offence falls under Union or State law.
Related Constitutional Provisions
| Article | Provision |
|---|---|
| Article 72 | Pardoning power of the President |
| Article 74 | President acts on aid and advice of Council of Ministers |
| Article 161 | Pardoning power of the Governor |
Difference Btween Pardoning Powers of the President and the Governor
| Basis | President (Article 72) | Governor (Article 161) |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Provision | Article 72 | Article 161 |
| Executive Jurisdiction | Union laws | State laws |
| Court-Martial | Can grant pardon | No power over Court-Martial sentences |
| Death Sentence | Can pardon, commute, remit, suspend or reprieve a death sentence | Cannot grant a full pardon for a death sentence; may suspend, remit or commute in cases within State executive power |
| Aid & Advice | Acts on advice of Union Council of Ministers | Acts on advice of State Council of Ministers |
| Scope | Wider jurisdiction | Comparatively narrower jurisdiction |
Landmark Judgments
Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981): The Supreme Court held that the President and Governor exercise mercy powers on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, not on personal discretion.
Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989): The Court held that while deciding a mercy petition, the President may examine the merits of the case.
- However, the President does not function as a regular appellate court.
Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2006): The Supreme Court ruled that mercy decisions are subject to judicial review if they are arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or based on irrelevant considerations.
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014): The Court held that undue delay in deciding mercy petitions can be a valid ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment.
Conclusion
The President's pardoning power under Article 72 reflects the constitutional balance between justice and compassion. While courts determine guilt through the judicial process, the executive mercy power provides a final constitutional safeguard against irreversible injustice. Its transparent, fair, and non-arbitrary exercise strengthens the rule of law, protects individual rights, and upholds the humanitarian spirit of the Constitution.
