Difference Between Pardoning Powers of President and Governor
1. Constitutional Provisions
President of India
The President’s pardoning powers are provided under Article 72 of the Constitution.
The Article states that the President may grant:
Pardon
Commutation of sentence (reduce the sentence)
Reprieve (temporary suspension of punishment)
Respite (reduce punishment for certain categories)
Remission (reduce period of sentence)
Scope:
Death sentences
Life imprisonment
Imprisonment of any kind
Punishment under central laws
Special Case:
Article 72(1) specifically allows President to grant pardon in cases involving death sentence (sentence of death).
Governor of a State
The Governor’s pardoning powers are provided under Article 161 of the Constitution.
The Governor may grant:
Pardon
Commutation
Reprieve
Respite
Remission
Scope:
Only for offenses against state laws
Cannot grant pardon in death sentences for offenses under central law (only for state law offenses)
2. Key Differences Between President and Governor
| Feature | President | Governor |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Article | Article 72 | Article 161 |
| Scope of Powers | Central and state laws (but mainly for central laws) | Only state laws |
| Death Sentence | Can grant pardon, reprieve, respite, commutation, or remission even in death sentence cases | Cannot grant pardon in death sentence cases under central law; only for state law punishments |
| Nature | Exercised as executive power of the Union | Exercised as executive power of the State |
| Cases Covered | All cases under Indian Penal Code, central statutes, or laws made by Parliament | Only cases under laws of the state legislature |
| Consultation | Generally advised to consult the Council of Ministers | Generally advised to consult the State Council of Ministers |
3. Important Case Laws
M. Venkatesan v. Union of India (1979)
The Supreme Court held that the President’s pardon power is not absolute and is subject to judicial review in case of malafide or unconstitutional exercise.
Emphasized that plea for mercy must be considered with fairness.
Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2006)
The Court clarified that Governor’s power under Article 161 is similar to Article 72 but limited to state laws.
The pardon cannot be arbitrary or for extraneous reasons.
Sher Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
Highlighted that Governor’s power under Article 161 cannot extend to offenses under central law, especially death sentence.
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) (related to misuse)
Although not directly about pardon, the Supreme Court held executive discretion must follow constitutional morality and reasonableness, applicable to both President and Governor.
4. Summary
President: Can pardon offenses under central or state law, including death penalty cases.
Governor: Can pardon offenses under state law only, generally cannot pardon death penalty for central law offenses.
Both powers are subject to judicial review and require consultation with respective Council of Ministers.
Case law emphasizes that the exercise of these powers must be reasonable, fair, and not arbitrary.
RELATED Blog
0 comments