A person was convicted for assassinating the Chief Minister of a State and he was awarded Death Sentence. The said Sentence was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court When he was scheduled to be hanged, a mercy petition was filed before the President of India by the Chief Minister of the State concerned. Discuss the maintainability of such Mercy Petition.

Facts of the Case

1. A person (hereinafter referred to as ‘X’) was convicted for assassinating the Chief Minister of a State.
2. After a full trial before the Sessions Court, X was sentenced to death under the Indian Penal Code for the offence of murder.
3. X preferred an appeal before the High Court, which confirmed the death sentence.
4. A further appeal to the Supreme Court was also dismissed, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence of death.
5. When the execution of the sentence was scheduled, the Chief Minister of the concerned State filed a mercy petition before the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution, seeking commutation of the death sentence.
6. The question arose whether such a mercy petition filed by a third party (the Chief Minister), and not by the convict or his family members, is maintainable in law.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether a mercy petition under Article 72 of the Constitution can be filed by a person other than the convict or his relatives, such as the Chief Minister of the State.
2. What is the extent of the President’s power to grant pardon, reprieve, respite, or commutation of sentences under Article 72?
3. Whether the Chief Minister, acting in an official or personal capacity, has locus standi (legal standing) to file such a petition.
4. Whether the President is bound to consider such a mercy petition, and to what extent the Governor under Article 161 has concurrent power.
5. Whether the mercy petition filed by a person not directly affected can be treated as a valid representation to initiate the constitutional process of clemency.

Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements

A. Constitutional Provisions

1. Article 72 of the Constitution of India – Power of the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment:
   • The President has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence—
     • (a) In all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial;
     • (b) In all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends; and
     • (c) In all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.
2. Article 161 of the Constitution of India – Power of the Governor to grant pardons, etc., in certain cases:
   • The Governor of a State has similar powers in cases involving offences against laws within the State’s executive power, except the power to grant pardon in death sentence cases, which rests exclusively with the President.

B. Judicial Precedents

1. Kehar Singh v. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 653)
   • Facts: Kehar Singh was convicted for the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and sentenced to death. His mercy petition was filed before the President under Article 72.
   • Held: The Supreme Court held that the President’s power under Article 72 is of the widest amplitude, and the President can examine the merits of the case afresh.
   • Principle: Any person may bring a mercy petition to the President, and the President may act on any relevant material placed before him, not necessarily only at the instance of the convict.
2. Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of A.P. (AIR 2006 SC 3385)
   • Held: The exercise of pardon power is subject to judicial review on limited grounds such as mala fides, arbitrariness, or extraneous considerations.
   • Principle: While the President or Governor has absolute discretion, the exercise of that power must conform to constitutional standards of fairness.
3. Maru Ram v. Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 2147)
   • Held: The power of pardon is to be exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and not in personal discretion of the President or Governor.
   • Principle: The President may act upon any petition, whether made by the convict himself, his family, or any person interested in justice, as the purpose of Article 72 is to ensure justice and mercy, not procedural technicalities.
4. Swaran Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1998 SC 2026)
   • Held: The President or Governor must consider all relevant materials before deciding the mercy petition, and the process must not be mechanical or arbitrary.

C. Interpretation of Law

• A mercy petition is not a judicial appeal but an executive remedy based on compassion, humanity, or public interest.
• The object of Article 72 is to allow the highest constitutional authority to reconsider punishment in extraordinary cases.
• The right to submit a petition is not confined only to the convict or his legal representatives. Any person, including a Chief Minister, can file a representation on behalf of the convict.

Possible Judgement

1. The mercy petition filed by the Chief Minister of the concerned State before the President of India is maintainable under Article 72 of the Constitution.
2. The President is not restricted to consider petitions only from the convict or his relatives. The President can act on any material placed before him, even if initiated by a third party.
3. The power under Article 72 is wide, discretionary, and humanitarian, intended to correct possible miscarriages of justice or to show mercy in appropriate circumstances.
4. The President’s consideration of the petition will be made on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers, and the decision will depend on the merits of the case, not merely on who submitted it.
5. The Court would likely refer to Kehar Singh’s case, holding that even though the conviction and sentence have attained finality, the President can still review the matter in the exercise of clemency powers.
6. Hence, the mercy petition filed by the Chief Minister would be valid and maintainable, and the President can entertain and decide it, provided it is done in accordance with constitutional norms and ministerial advice.

About lawgnan

Explore the constitutional dimensions of mercy petitions under Article 72 and understand how Presidential clemency operates beyond judicial conviction. Discover landmark judgments like Kehar Singh v. Union of India, Maru Ram v. Union of India, and Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of A.P., which define the scope of humanitarian justice and executive discretion. Learn how even third parties, including public officials, can seek mercy in the interest of justice. Visit Lawgnan.in to access expert legal insights, constitutional interpretations, and case analyses shaping India’s mercy jurisdiction and fundamental rights.