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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more