Krishnan & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2008,
decided on May 7, 2013
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution provide for residuary
sovereign power, thus, there could be nothing to debar the concerned
authorities to exercise such power even after rejection of one clemency
petition and even in the changed circumstances.” [Para 7]
The
Court also noted following case laws:
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Jagdish, AIR 2010 SC 1690, the
Court has considered as under:
“33. Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution provide for a
residuary sovereign power, thus, there can be nothing to debar the concerned
authority to exercise such power, even after rejection of one clemency
petition, if the changed circumstances so warrant.
xx xx xx xx
35. In view of the above, it is evident that the clemency
power of the Executive is absolute and remains unfettered for the reason that
the provisions contained under Article 72 or 161 of the Constitution cannot be
restricted by the provisions of Sections 432, 433 and 433-A CrPC though the
Authority has to meet the requirements referred to hereinabove while exercising
the clemency power.
To say that clemency power under Articles 72/161 of the
Constitution cannot be exercised by the President or the Governor, as the case
may be, before a convict completes the incarceration period provided in the
short sentencing policy, even in an exceptional case, would be mutually
inconsistent with the theory that clemency power is unfettered.
Krishta Goud and J. Bhoomaiah v. State of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 157)
To see full text follow the link: