How is the power of Governor to Pardon different from the power of the President under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution?

by

Points to Remember:

  • Article 72: Deals with the President’s power of pardon.
  • Article 161: Deals with the Governor’s power of pardon.
  • Scope of Pardon: Both powers extend to similar offenses but differ in scope and extent.
  • Limitations: Both powers are subject to certain limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

Introduction:

The Indian Constitution vests the power of pardon in both the President (Article 72) and the Governors of States (Article 161). While both powers relate to remitting, commuting, pardoning, reprieving, and respiting sentences, significant differences exist in their scope and application. This analysis will delve into these distinctions, highlighting the unique aspects of each power. The power of pardon is a crucial aspect of the criminal justice system, allowing for the exercise of mercy and the correction of potential judicial errors. However, the constitutional framework carefully delineates the extent of this power for both the President and the Governors to prevent its misuse.

Body:

1. Extent of Power:

  • President (Article 72): The President’s power extends to cases involving sentences by courts-martial (military courts), as well as punishments for offenses against Union laws. This includes cases where the death penalty has been awarded. Crucially, the President’s power extends to all sentences, irrespective of whether the case originated in a state or union territory.

  • Governor (Article 161): The Governor’s power is limited to cases involving sentences by state courts for offenses against state laws. While the Governor can pardon, commute, reprieve, or respite sentences, their power does not extend to cases involving courts-martial or offenses against Union laws.

2. Scope of Application:

  • President: Has a wider jurisdiction, encompassing offenses against both Union and State laws in certain circumstances (e.g., if the case involves a death sentence and is referred to the President). Their power is more expansive and covers a broader range of cases.

  • Governor: Jurisdiction is confined to offenses against State laws. They cannot pardon someone sentenced for an offense against a Union law, even if the trial took place within their state.

3. Advisory Role:

  • President: While not explicitly mandated, the President often seeks the advice of the Council of Ministers before exercising their pardon powers. This is a matter of convention and good governance.

  • Governor: Similarly, while not legally binding, the Governor usually consults with the State Council of Ministers before exercising their pardon powers. This consultation is crucial for ensuring transparency and accountability.

4. Cases and Examples:

Numerous cases demonstrate the application of these powers. However, specific examples are often kept confidential due to the sensitive nature of pardon decisions. Academic literature and legal analyses often discuss the principles involved in such decisions, but detailed case studies are rarely publicly available.

5. Limitations:

Both the President and the Governor’s powers are not absolute. They cannot pardon someone convicted of contempt of court. Furthermore, the exercise of these powers must be judicious and not arbitrary. Judicial review can be invoked if the pardon is deemed to be mala fide or based on irrelevant considerations.

Conclusion:

The power of pardon vested in the President under Article 72 and the Governor under Article 161, while sharing similarities in their nature, differ significantly in their scope and application. The President possesses a wider jurisdiction, encompassing offenses against both Union and State laws in certain circumstances, while the Governor’s power is confined to offenses against State laws. Both powers are subject to limitations and require careful consideration to ensure fairness and justice. A balanced approach is crucial in exercising these powers, ensuring transparency and accountability while upholding the rule of law. Further research and analysis could focus on developing clearer guidelines for the exercise of these powers to enhance their effectiveness and prevent potential misuse, promoting a more just and equitable criminal justice system. This would contribute to the holistic development of the nation’s legal framework, upholding constitutional values and ensuring sustainable justice for all.

UPPCS Notes brings Prelims and Mains programs for UPPCS Prelims and UPPCS Mains Exam preparation. Various Programs initiated by UPPCS Notes are as follows:- For any doubt, Just leave us a Chat or Fill us a querry––