12 May Comparative analysis of the Pardon Powers of Governor and the president
Comparative analysis of the Pardon Powers of Governor and the president – Today Current Affairs
By 11 may 2009, the honorable supreme court slammed the central government that presidents have exclusive rights on the power . During last days , in the case of A. G. Perarivalan, an accused of the assassination of Rajeev Gandhi, supreme court asked the central government whether the president has exclusive right of the pardon and the court also argued regarding the cases in which governors have already used his pardoning power for the last 70-75 years . A. G. Perarivalan is on life imprisonment along with Murugan and Santhan who were other two convicts of the same case.
Today Current Affairs
In Indian constitution, president and governs , both have right to pardon any convict of any cases However there are some differences in the exercising of the pardoning powers by governor and the president but it does not mean that the president has exclusive pardoning power and each case of the governor should be transferred for consent of the president. The Hindu Analysis
In recent case of the A. G. Perarivalan, an accused of the assassination of Rajeev Gandhi, the central government asked the governor to transfer this case to center. Therefore Tamil Nadu’s state government had to approach the honorable supreme court . A three-judge Bench, led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao, said the government’s argument, if taken on face value, would leave Article 161 (the constitutional power of Governors of States to grant pardon) a “dead letter”. Additional Solicitor-General K.M. Natraj had appeared in the case from the side of the central government . The Hindu Analysis
Honorable supreme court asked if , president has exclusive power of the pardoning then what about those cases in the history in which the accused had already pardoned by the governors of the states without the interfering of the center government (President)
Compare between the pardoning power of the president and the governor : The Hindu Analysis
As per the Indian constitution , the president has the power of pardon to any accused or convicted in any of the cases including the cases related to court marshals also (Article 72) . Similarly the Governor has the power of pardon to any accused or convicted in any of the causes but The governor does not have the power to pardon the sentence inflicted by the court-martial on the convict. (Article 161). The Hindu Analysis
However, the governor and president both have the right of pardoning in the case of death sentence but the The President can also pardon the death sentence through commutation or in its entirety while on the other side the governor can not pardon any convicted for death sentence before the 14 years of his/her imprisonment . The jurisdiction of both the president and the governors are clearly defined . The president can pardon if the convict had offenses against the union and if the office was done by the convict against the state , the governor has the right to pardon. Here it should be very well understood that if the state governor does not interfere in the pardoning case then , the president can pardon the convict however the committed crime is related to the state . But if the committed crime is related to the integrity of India and the Union , then the governor can not use the power of pardoning . The Hindu Analysis
It should also be very well understood that whether the governor or president both use the power of pardoning with the consent of the cabinet .
Today Current Affairs
India is a country whose administration is cooperative federalism . It means up to an extent , the state government has the right to make the laws for the well being of the people of the state . And it is generally expected that the central government would not interfere in internal affairs of the state until or unless the matter is not related to the unity and integrity of India as a nation . Therefore generally in every matter, the governor should not transfer the case to the central government . Punishment should be reformative in its nature . if government thinks that a particular person should be given one opportunity for remorse, it would bring the fundamental change in our judicial system.