Premium
This is an archive article published on October 12, 2006

Politics can146;t be the factor in pardon: SC

Amidst the clamour over the mercy plea for Mohammed Afzal, ordered to be hanged for his role in the December 2001 Parliament attack case...

.

Amidst the clamour over the mercy plea for Mohammed Afzal, ordered to be hanged for his role in the December 2001 Parliament attack case, the Supreme Court today made it clear that maintenance of the rule of law, and not political expediency, should be the criteria for grant of pardon or remission of sentence by the President or Governor. Any such decision, the apex court reminded, should not only be for the benefit of the convict, but should take into account its effect on the families of the victims and the society as well.

Setting aside a decision of then Andhra Pradesh Governor Sushil Kumar Shinde, remitting the sentence of a Congress activist who faced ten years in prison in connection with the killing of two persons including a TDP activist, the SC bench of Justices S H Kapadia and Arijit Pasayat warned that the exercise of the power would be tested by the court against the maintenance of Rule of Law.

8220;Rule of Law is the basis for evaluation of all decisions by the court8230; That rule cannot be compromised on the grounds of political expediency. To go by such considerations would be subversive of the fundamental principles of the Rule of Law and it would amount to setting a dangerous precedent,8221; the bench warned.

Justice Kapadia, while concurring with the main ruling delivered by Justice Pasayat, sought to remind 8220;exercise of executive clemency is a matter of discretion and yet subject to certain standards. It is not a matter of privilege. It is a matter of performance of official duty8230; the power of executive clemency is not only for the benefit of the convict, but while exercising such a power the President or the Governor as the case may be, has to keep in mind the effect of his decision on the family of the victims, the society as a whole and the precedent it sets for the future.8221;

8220;An undue exercise of this power is to be deplored. Considerations of religion, caste or political loyalty are fraught with discrimination,8221; he said. The judgment also reiterated the settled position of law as laid down in Indira Gandhi assassin Kehar Singh8217;s case that exercise or non-exercise of the pardoning power by the President or Governor would not be immune from judicial review.

The court, however, admitted it was not possible to draw up any guidelines for exercise of the power of pardon or remission. 8220;The exercise of the power depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the necessity or justification for exercise of that power has to be judged from case to case,8221; the judges said.

But lest it be taken as a license, the court warned that it will not interfere provided the decision of pardon was taken applying 8220;manageable standards8221;. 8220;By manageable standards, we mean standards expected in a functioning democracy. A pardon obtained by fraud or granted by mistake or granted for improper reasons would invite judicial review,8221; Justice Kapadia said.

Story continues below this ad

Justice Pasayat also elaborated on this point saying that 8220;if it comes to the knowledge of the Government that the pardon has been obtained on the basis of manifest mistake or patent misrepresentation of fraud, the same can be rescinded and cancelled.8221; Though this was not provided in either Article 72 or Article 161 dealing with pardoning power of President and Governor respectively, it was possible by applying the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The court also explained what it meant by the Rule of Law. 8220;The Rule of Law principle comprises a requirement of Government according to law. The ethos of Government according to law requires the prerogative to be exercised in a manner which is consistent with the basic principle of fairness and certainty.8221; In the instant case, Shinde had on August 11, 2005 granted remission of the unexpired sentence of about 7 years for Congress activist Gowru Venkata Reddy. Against this, the kin of the deceased moved the SC.

The court after examining the facts came to the conclusion that irrelevant and extraneous materials entered in the process had vitiated the Governor8217;s decision.

EX-CJIs AGREE WITH RULING BUT8230;

Today8217;s Supreme Court ruling which subjects the pardon power of a Governor and the President to 8220;judicial review8221; has received support from several former Chief Justices of India but they differ on the application of the judicial review yardstick. Former Chief Justice J S Verma said 8220;every action of the executive is subject to judicial review but such a review should be exercised with great circumspection8221;

Chautala the merciful Granting pardon to hardcore criminals was a habit for former chief minister Om Prakash Chautala. During his regime the number of those released by the government was pegged at 275

Story continues below this ad

The ghost is back in AP Congress leader Gouru Venkat Reddy was convicted of murder in 2000 but pardoned by Governor in August 2005. The SC ruling today has kicked up a political row

 

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement