Pardoning Power of President is a constitutional provision that serves as a corrective tool in the justice system. Under Article 72, the President has the authority to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment, and to suspend, remit, or commute sentences, including death penalties. Similarly, Article 161 grants the Governor of a state comparable powers. While these powers aim to uphold justice and compassion, they are subject to judicial review to prevent misuse and ensure fairness, especially in cases involving political influence or favoritism.

In this article, we will understand the Pardoning Powers of the President. All these dimensions are important for competitive examinations like IAS, IPS, IFS, etc. Considering this, the Testbook provides the best quality notes for UPSC Exams. Study major topics of Indian Polity from the perspective of UPSC Exams.

Download the UPSC Practice Questions on the Pardoning Power of President!

Read Important Articles of the Indian Constitution here.

What is Pardoning Power?

The pardoning power is the power of the head of state or government to grant pardons, commutations, and reprieves to individuals who have been convicted of crimes. Pardons are granted to forgive a crime and erase the conviction from the person's record. Commutations are granted to reduce the severity of a sentence, such as from a death sentence to life in prison. Reprieves are granted to delay the execution of a sentence, such as to allow for a new trial or clemency appeal.

Purpose of a Pardoning Power

The purpose of a pardoning power is to serve as a check on the judicial system and to provide a way to correct injustices. It is also a way to show mercy and promote rehabilitation.

Learn more about the Ordinance Making Power of the President and Governor!

Article 72 of the Indian Constitution deals with the President’s pardoning power. The President can grant respites, remissions, pardons, and reprieves of punishment, which can be used in the following situations:

• In all circumstances where a Court Martial imposes a penalty or sentence;
• In all situations when the punishment or sentence is for a violation of any legislation pertaining to an issue within the Union’s executive jurisdiction;
• In all situations where the sentence carries the death penalty.

Article 72 empowers the President to grant pardons and suspend, remit, or commute sentences under certain conditions.

Study the Making of the Indian Constitution here.

Types of Pardoning Powers of President

Article 72 of the Constitution grants the President the authority to award pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of penalty, as well as to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of anybody guilty of a crime.

The below Table Gives a Detail Interpretation of the Types of Pardoning Powers of the President:

Guidelines for the Exercise of Pardoning Power

Neither the Indian Constitution nor any other legislation specifies the procedures to be followed for using the constitutional power to grant pardon. The search for rules for using this power has its origins in a broader reading of Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Preamble of the Indian Constitution protects ‘human dignity,’ but no constitutional rules for the use of the right to grant pardon have been established.

Learn more about the Difference between presidential and Parliamentary forms of government!

The pardoning power of the President of India is wider than the pardoning power of Governor of a State. Here is a table summarizing the key differences:

Also, check out this article on the Pardoning Power of the Governor here.

The Supreme Court concluded in Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) that the authority to grant pardon under Article 72 must be used on the opinion of the Council of Ministers. In this instance, the Supreme Court placed strong reliance on British practice in reaching this conclusion about the Indian situation. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its judgement in Maru Ram, saying that “the power under Article 72 and Article 161 can be used by the Central and State Governments, not by the President and Governor on their own” in the Dhana v. State of West Bengal 1994 case.

The Supreme Court decided in Epuru Sudhakar & Anr. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2006) that the President and Governor’s mercy powers under Article 72 and Article 161 are susceptible to judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court established the following grounds on which a petitioner may seek judicial review of the clemency power:

• If the command is given without any thought put into it.
• If the command was given in bad faith.
• If the order was based on wholly unrelated factors.
• If the order is arbitrarily placed.

Study Important Articles of the Constitution of India here.

Revocation of Pardon

It’s very conceivable that the executive’s pardon may be rescinded or withdrawn. In two instances, the issue of revocation may be brought to the executive’s attention.

• The first instance in which a pardon can be rescinded is when it was acquired via fraud, misrepresentation, or disinformation. In other words, even if the person pardoned had no role in the deception, a pardon obtained via false and fraudulent representation or purposeful concealment of the truth is unlawful.
• A pardon can be granted to either the person requesting the pardon or the person seeking the pardon. In fact, a pardon can be either unconditional or conditional. The condition must constantly be met, and failure to do so might result in the prisoner being sent behind bars once more.

Key Supreme Court Judgments Related to the Pardoning Power of President

Here’s a list of key judgments related to the Pardoning Powers of the President:

Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980)

The Supreme Court held that the President and Governor must exercise the pardoning power on the advice of the Council of Ministers. It is not a personal discretion.

Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989)

The Court ruled that the President can examine the merits of the case even after the court's judgment, but the power must not be used arbitrarily.

Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2006)

The Court stated that clemency powers are subject to judicial review if exercised on malafide or irrelevant grounds.

Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)

The Supreme Court held that undue delay in deciding mercy petitions can be a ground to commute death sentences to life imprisonment.

Testbook is an online learning platform that can be used to prepare for any competitive exam. Participants in live coaching sessions, current affairs sessions, and exams available on our Testbook App can enhance their preparedness. It’s time to download the Testbook App Download Now!