Law notes

[5/7, 07:05] Sekarreporter1: [5/7, 07:04] Sekarreporter1: *07.05.’21, LAW NOTES:*

*III) The Court can interfere on the exercise of Pardon Power by the President’s / the Governor’s on the following* *grounds.*

i) If it is vitiated by self-denial of the power conferred by Art 72 or 161 (order saying that he could not go behind final decision of the Apex Court)

*1)* [(1981) 1 SCC 107]
Maru Ram .vs. Union of India.

*ii)* If it is irrelevant to Art 72/161, without application of mind, arbitrary, discriminatory or malafide.

*1)* [(2004) 7 SCC 634]
Bikas Chatterjee .vs. Union of India.

*2)* [(2000) 5 SCC 170]
Satpal .vs. State of Haryana.

*3)* [(2006) 8 SCC 161]
Epuru Sudhakar .vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh.

iii) In case of inordinate delay in passing order under Article 72/161, the Supreme Court under Article 32, can substitute the sentence of death into one of imprisonment for life since the unreasonable delay in execution of death sentence amounts to torture which is in violation of Art 21.

*1)* [(1990) Cr.L.J. 1341 SC]
Triveniben Keshavlal Parmar .vs. State of Gujarat (III).

*2)* [(1983) 2 SCC 344]
Shersingh .vs. State of Punjab.

*3)* [(2014) 3 SCC 1]
Shatrughan Chauhan .vs. Union of India.

*4)* [(2013) 6 SCC 253]
Mahendra Nath Das .vs. Union of India.

*5)* [(2014) 4 SCC 242]
V.Sriharan .vs. Union of India.

iv) Any person who has been Prejudicially affected by the grant of pardon or remission is entitled to challenge it in a proceedings under Article 226.

*1)* [(1960) 62 Bambay L.R. 383]
State of Bambay .vs.Nanavai K.M.

*2)* [AIR 1975 P & H 148 (F.B)
Hukam Singh .vs. State of Punjab.

*(To be continued)*
[5/7, 07:05] Sekarreporter1: .
[5/7, 07:06] Sekarreporter1: K Selvaraj mhc advocate author