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:
“Pardons, reprieves and
remissions under Article 72 or Article 161 of the Constitution are granted in
exercise of prerogative power. There is no scope of Judicial review of such
orders except on very limited grounds. The power to grant pardons and to
commute sentences is coupled with a duty to exercise the same fairly and
reasonably. Administration of justice cannot he perverted by executive or
political pressure. Of course, adoption of uniform standards may not be
possible while exercising the power of pardon. Thus, directions of the court
specifying a minimum term of incarceration do not interfere with the sovereign
power of the State. Such directions have been passed by courts considering the
gravity of the offences directing that the accused would not be entitled to be
considered for premature release under the guidelines issued for that purpose
i.e. under Jail Manual, etc. or even under Section 433-A CrPC.” [Para 9]
The
Court also noted the following case law:
In
Epuru Sudhakar & Anr. v. Government of A.P. & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 161,
the Court held as under:
“34. The position, therefore, is undeniable that judicial
review of the order of the President or the Governor under Article 72 or
Article 161, as the case may be, is available and their orders can be impugned
on the following grounds:
(a) that the order has been passed without application of
mind;
(b) that the order is mala fide;
(c) that the order has been passed on extraneous or wholly
irrelevant considerations;
(d) that relevant materials have been kept out of
consideration;
(e) that the order suffers from arbitrariness.”
To see full text follow the link: