Skip to main content

President’s clemency power is not immune from Judicial Review

Kerala High Court: Dealing as to whether the power of the President/ Governor as provided in the Constitution is subjected to Judicial Review, a division bench of Ashok Bhushan CJ. and A.M. Shaffique J, reiterated that the decision of the President of India and the Governor under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution respectively, is not immune from the power of Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, however, only very limited judicial power is available in certain cases.

The present appeal was filed by the appellant, who was convicted under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, when his clemency petition before the President of India was rejected. The Counsel for the petitioner, P.B. Sahasranaman, contended that Chief Judicial Magistrate should not proceed with the steps in execution of the judgment, as clemency power of the President is subject to judicial review. R. Prasanth Kumar, Counsel for the respondent contended that the present petition is nothing but a device for delaying the execution of sentence although conviction has been confirmed upto the Apex Court.

The Court relied on Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. (2006) 8 SCC 161, where apex court elaborately considered the nature of the power of President. The Court observed that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in refusing the grant of prayers, as the conviction of the appellant was confirmed by the Apex Court and the clemency petition was rejected by the President. The Court further observed that the clemency power of the President/Governor is subject to judicial review, but only in certain cases where decision making authority exceeds its powers; commits an error of law; commits a breach of rules of natural justice; abuses its powers etc. However, the Court noted that in the present case, the decision of the President does not attract any ground which may come within the limited scope of judicial review. Accordingly, the Court upheld the decision of learned Single Judge and directed for execution of the judgment. [T. Mohammed Ashraf v. State of Kerala, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 9538  decided on 27.05.2015]

 Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/06/08/president-s-clemency-power-is-not-immune-from-judicial-review.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more