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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.
Post a Comment
Read more