PARDONING POWER

POWER TO PARDON IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL

REVIEW
• In Swaran Singh v State of U.P. 1998 ,
• The Governor of U.P. had granted remission of life sentence awarded to the Minister of the
State Legislature of Assembly convicted for the offence of murder.
• The Supreme Court interdicted the Governor’s order and said that it is true that it has no power
to touch the order passed by the Governor under Article 161, but if such power has been
exercised arbitrarily, mala fide or in absolute disregard of the “finer cannons of
constitutionalism”, such order cannot get approval of law and in such cases, “the judicial hand
must be stretched to it.”
• The Court held the order of Governor arbitrary and, hence, needed to be interdicted.
 CONTINUE….
• In a landmark judgment Epuru Sudhakar & Anr vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors, 2006 , it was held
by the Supreme Court that it is a well-set principle that a limited judicial review of exercise of
clemency powers is available to the Supreme Court and High Courts. Granting of clemency by
the President or Governor can be challenged on the following grounds:

• The order has been passed without application of mind.

• The order is mala fide.

• The order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations.

• Relevant material has been kept out of consideration.

• The order suffers from arbitrariness

 RECENT JUDGMENT
• Pyare Lal Vs State of Haryana, 2020
• A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench ( 7
Judge Bench) the question whether a Governor exercising his constitutional
power under Article 161 to grant remission of sentence to a convict can do so
without considering the facts or merits of the individual case?