The Case of Kehar Singh vs Union of India (1989)

July 27, 2024

An act of grace, mercy, and forgiveness is seen as a pardon. A long-standing idea permits the sovereign executive to grant mercy to an incarcerated individual. It was once related to a metaphorical power held by a monarchy that resembled a god and had the ability to influence the life and death of his subjects. According to Seervai, the ability to show mercy is crucial because it can stop injustice from occurring as a result of severe, unjust laws or decisions that lead to injustice. For this reason, it has always been acknowledged that an authority other than the judiciary must have this ability.

kehar singh vs union of india Case Facts

  • In this regard, the Court in Kehar Singh, the primary subject of this article, went a step farther. Kehar Singh was found guilty of violating section 120b of the indian penal code and section 302 of the indian penal code in relation to the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
  • The Additional Sessions Judge found him guilty at trial, and all of his appeals to higher authorities were dismissed. They requested clemency and said that the guilty verdict was incorrect in their application to the President for the issuance of a pardon under article 72.
  • They should be given the chance to participate in the oral hearing, it was further requested.
  • With the justification that they cannot discuss the merits of a case that has already been resolved by the Supreme Court, the President declined to grant a pardon.
  • Additionally, an oral hearing was denied to the petitioner. The primary question posed is whether the President may not discuss the merits of a case that the Supreme Court has ultimately resolved.

kehar singh vs union of india Issues

  • Is there any basis for the opinions that the president is able to hear regarding the case’s merits when the Supreme Court has already rendered a decision?
  • What domains does the president have the authority to examine closely?
  • Does the petitioner have the right to an oral hearing from the president about his pardon under article 72 petition?
  • Is it possible for the President’s pardoning authority to be challenged in court?

Contentions by the Parties

Petitioner:

  • The petitioner argues that the mercy plea was not given due consideration by the President.
  • The argument focuses on how incomplete and erroneous the information that supports Kehar Singh’s possible execution is.
  • It is claimed that the case is deserving of assistance and falls under the President’s purview.
  • The petitioner argues that even in cases when the Supreme Court has rendered a decision, the President still has the authority to review the case’s merits.
  • The plea also asks for the creation of regulations to control the use of the pardon power and avoid its arbitrary application.

Respondent:

  • According to the Attorney General, there is no judicial review of authority used in accordance with pardon under article 72.
  • It is maintained that the President alone has the power to give mercy, and that judges cannot get involved in this decision.
  • The Attorney General emphasizes that the President’s authority is used in accordance with the Executive’s recommendations, which need to be unfettered.
  • The argument emphasizes that the Court cannot question the President’s reasoning for the decision if the President does not give any explanation.

kehar singh vs union of india Judgment

  • The court established that, outside of the stringent parameters outlined in the Maru Ram case, the president’s decision cannot be the subject of judicial review on its merits.
  • The President may review the evidence on file in a criminal case, but he or she cannot replace or alter the court record.
  • Correcting the mistakes made by the judiciary is one of the main purposes of the President’s pardoning power, which is exclusive of administrative matters.
  • The President has the exclusive authority to decide how to handle the petition; the condemned party has no right to demand an oral hearing before the President.
  • Furthermore, it has been decided that the President’s pardoning authority is an act of grace and cannot be contested as a legal one.

The Supreme Court emphasized in kehar singh vs union of india that the President is entitled to judge a case on its merits regardless of the court’s previous ruling in the matter. The court made it clear that the President’s authority under Article 72 is subject to judicial review and falls within the court’s jurisdiction. The decision also made it clear that a person who has been found guilty does not automatically have the right to request an oral hearing before the president.

With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf

Leave a Comment