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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more