INTRODUCTION
Article 161 vests the Governor with the power to grant pardons and related reliefs. Supreme Court precedents have played a crucial role in clarifying the nature, limits, and manner of exercise of this power within India’s constitutional framework.
SIGNIFICANCE OF SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS
Clarification of Constitutional Position
- Shamsher Singh (1974) established that the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, limiting personal discretion
- Reinforces the parliamentary principle of executive accountability
Judicial Review of Clemency Powers
- In Epuru Sudhakar (2006), the Court held that pardon powers are subject to judicial review on grounds like arbitrariness, mala fides, or extraneous considerations
- Prevents misuse of Article 161 for political or personal ends
Harmonisation with Fundamental Rights
- Kehar Singh (1989) and subsequent rulings recognised that clemency decisions must align with constitutional values, including fairness and non-arbitrariness
- Ensures due process considerations even in executive mercy
Recent Judicial Interventions
- Courts have emphasised that Governors cannot indefinitely delay decisions on mercy petitions
- Strengthens accountability and timeliness in decision-making
CHALLENGES IN PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Delays and Inaction
- Absence of prescribed timelines leads to prolonged pendency of mercy petitions
- Undermines justice delivery and prisoners’ rights
Centre-State Political Frictions
- Governors may act contrary to State government advice due to political considerations
- Creates constitutional deadlock and litigation
Ambiguity in Scope of Discretion
- Despite judicial clarity, grey areas persist regarding exceptional circumstances
- Leads to inconsistent practices across States
Limited Enforcement of Judicial Norms
- Courts can review decisions but cannot compel specific outcomes
- Implementation depends on executive compliance
Institutional Constraints
- Lack of transparency in decision-making processes
- Inadequate administrative mechanisms for timely processing of petitions
CONCLUSION
Supreme Court precedents have significantly constrained and guided the exercise of Article 161 powers, reinforcing democratic accountability. However, practical challenges rooted in ambiguity, delays, and political dynamics continue to limit their effective realisation.