Editorials       Cover Story   Letters
 Subscribe Now  Contact Us
Search  
 
Book Reviews
Case Study
Constitution of India
Cover Story
Crime File
Cyber Space
Good Living
Harvard Law School
Health & Fitness
Permanent Imprint Leading
   Cases
Know Your Judge
The Law and The Celebrity
Legal Articles
Legal Events
Law for Other Species
Law School Confidential
Legal Scanner
Legal Trotternama
Media Scan
Potpourri
Reasoning The Reasons
Street Lawyer
Study Abroad
Supreme Court Cases
Thinkers & Theory
Top Law Schools
Universal Law of Success
--------------- Print Magazine --------------
 
  May 2016
 
  April 2016
 
 
 
 
PERMANENT IMPRINT LEADING CASES

Appeal to the President of India for Grant of Pardon

Kehar Singh v. Union of India , AIR 1989 SC 653: (1989) 1 SCC 204

Facts : The former Prime Minister of India Smt. Indira Gandhi was assassinated on
31-10-1984 by Sub-Inspector Beant Singh and constable Satwant Singh. Both of them fired bullets at Smt. Gandhi when she was proceeding to her office from her residence. In connection with this assassination, one Kehar Singh was convicted of an offence under section 120B read with section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to death. His son, Rajinder Singh, presented a petition to the President of India for the grant of pardon to Kehar Singh under Article 72 of the Constitution. In that petition reference was made to the evidence on the record of the criminal case and it was sought to be established that Kehar Singh was innocent, and that the verdict of the Courts that Kehar Singh was guilty was erroneous.

Issues: The area and scope of the President's power under Article 72.

(1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to an oral hearing from the President on his petition invoking the powers under Article 72?

Judgment: To any civilized society, there can be no attributes more important than the life and personal liberty of its members. That is evident from the paramount position given by the Courts to Article 21 of the Constitution. These twin attributes enjoy a fundamental ascendancy over all other attributes of the political and social order, and consequently, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary are more sensitive to them than to the other attributes of daily existence. The deprivation of personal liberty and the threat of the deprivation of life by the action of the State is in most civilized societies regarded seriously, and recourse, either under express constitutional provision or through legislative enactment is provided to the judicial organ. But the fallibility of human judgment being undeniable even in the most trained mind, a mind resourced by a harvest of experience, it has been considered appropriate that in the matter of life and personal liberty, the protection should be extended by entrusting power further to some high authority to scrutinize the validity of the threatened denial of life or the threatened or continued denial of personal liberty. The power so entrusted is a power belonging to the people and reposed in the highest dignitary of the State.

The power to pardon is a part of the constitutional scheme and it should be so treated also in the Indian Republic. It has been reposed by the people through the Constitution in the head of the State, and enjoys high status. It is a constitutional responsibility of great significance, to be exercised when occasion arises in accordance with the discretion contemplated by the context. In Maru Ram v. Union of India , AIR 1980 SC 2147: 1980 Cr LJ 1440, it was held that the President's power under Article 72 of the Constitution is to be exercised on the advice of the Central Government and not by the President on his own, and that the advice of the Government binds the head of the State.

Further the power under Article 72 entitles the President to examine the record of evidence of the criminal case and to come to a different conclusion from that recorded by the Court. But in doing so, the President does not amend or modify or supersede the judicial record. The President while exercising power under Article 72 acts under a constitutional power which is entirely different from the judicial power and cannot be regarded as an extension of it.

There is no right in the condemned person who has applied for pardon to insist on an oral hearing before the President. The manner of consideration of the petition lies within the discretion of the President and it is for him to decide how best he can acquaint himself with all the information that is necessary for its proper and effective disposal.

 
 
LAWYERS UPDATE
(Print Version)
Rs. 600/- per year
(Registered Post & Courier)
     
 

New Releases by UNIVERSAL's

     To avail discounts and for more details write to us at marketing.in@lexisnexis.com

Home     :      About Us     :      Subscribe     :      Advertise With Us    :       Privacy     :      Copyright     :      Feedback     :      Contact Us

Copyright © Universal Book Traders. All material on this site is subject to copyright. All rights reserved.
No part of this material may be reproduced, transmitted, framed or stored in a retrieval system for public or private
use without the written permission of the publisher. This site is developed and maintained by Universal Legal Infosolutions.
Powered by: Universal Book Traders