Commutation And Pardon Powers Under Article 72
What is Article 72?
Article 72 of the Constitution of India empowers the President of India to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offense:
In all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a court-martial,
In all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offense against a Union law,
In all cases where the sentence is a death sentence,
In such other cases where the President considers it appropriate.
Key Terms under Article 72:
Pardon: Complete forgiveness absolving the convict of the crime and its consequences.
Commutation: Reducing the severity of the punishment (e.g., death sentence reduced to life imprisonment).
Remission: Reduction of the sentence without changing its nature.
Reprieve: Temporary suspension of the sentence.
Respite: Awarding a lesser punishment to a convict based on special grounds (like pregnancy or age).
Purpose of Article 72
To provide humanitarian relief to convicts.
To serve as a check and balance on the judiciary.
To allow correction of miscarriages of justice.
To enable the exercise of mercy in exceptional cases.
Case Laws on Commutation and Pardon Powers under Article 72
1. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)
Facts: Mithu was sentenced to death for murder. The Supreme Court reviewed the scope of Article 72.
Holding: The court held that the power under Article 72 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. It also said that the President must exercise this power judiciously and fairly.
Importance: Established that the President’s power of pardon and commutation can be examined by courts to ensure it is not arbitrary or mala fide.
2. Swamy Shraddananda v. Union of India (2008)
Facts: Swamy Shraddananda was sentenced to life imprisonment and sought pardon.
Holding: The Supreme Court emphasized that the President’s power under Article 72 is discretionary but must be exercised based on facts and circumstances of the case. The court also highlighted that the President can refuse pardon if the crime is heinous.
Importance: Affirmed that mercy petitions are subject to consideration of gravity of offense and other relevant factors.
3. Epuru Sudhakar & Ors v. Government of A.P. & Anr (2006)
Facts: The petitioners challenged the arbitrary rejection of mercy petitions by the President.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that the President’s power under Article 72 is subject to judicial review and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
Importance: Reinforced that executive clemency must adhere to principles of natural justice and fairness.
4. Shatrughan Chauhan & Ors v. Union of India (2014)
Facts: Several death row convicts filed mercy petitions that were delayed for years without proper consideration.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that undue delay in deciding mercy petitions violates the right to life under Article 21. The court ordered a time-bound decision on mercy petitions.
Importance: Highlighted the need for timely exercise of mercy powers and protection of convicts' rights.
5. Swaran Singh v. Union of India (1969)
Facts: This case involved the question of whether the President must follow the advice of the Council of Ministers in exercising pardon powers.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that the President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and thus, the exercise of pardon is subject to government advice.
Importance: Clarified the constitutional role of the President as a formal executive authority bound by ministerial advice.
Summary of Key Principles from Case Law:
| Principle | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| President’s power is discretionary but not absolute | Must be exercised judiciously, not arbitrarily. | Mithu v. Punjab, Epuru Sudhakar |
| Mercy petitions require timely disposal | Delay in deciding mercy petitions violates constitutional rights | Shatrughan Chauhan |
| Gravity of offense matters | Heinous crimes may not attract pardon or commutation. | Swamy Shraddananda |
| President acts on ministerial advice | Exercise of mercy is bound by government advice constitutionally. | Swaran Singh |
| Judicial review of mercy powers | Courts can examine whether mercy powers are exercised fairly. | Mithu v. Punjab, Epuru Sudhakar |
Conclusion
Article 72's pardon and commutation powers serve as an important constitutional safeguard, balancing mercy and justice. The President’s power is discretionary but subject to judicial review and ministerial advice. Mercy petitions must be treated with care, fairness, and timely consideration to protect convicts’ rights and uphold the rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments