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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

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