|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Wednesday, June 13, 2001 |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home |
|
Opinion
| Previous
| Next
Pardon and justice
Sir, - At the end of his discussion on the possibilities of the
grant of Governor's pardon to Ms. Jayalalitha (June 9), Mukund
Padmanabhan has made the relevant point that the grant of pardon
was never intended to pervert the course of justice. This is not
just a commonsense view but is supported by judicial
pronouncements at the highest level.
H.M. Seervai (Constitutional Law of India), while dealing with
the President's powers (Art. 72) and the Governors' powers (Art.
161) to grant pardon, etc. quotes a passage from the U.S. Supreme
Court Chief Justice Taft's judgment in a case involving the grant
of pardon by the U.S. President which, in turn, was cited by
Justice Chandrachud while rejecting a writ petition by Ranga
(who, along with Billa, was sentenced to death for the murder of
the Chopra children) questioning the rejection of his mercy
petition by the President. The relevant passage is given below:
The administration of justice by the courts is not necessarily
always wise or certainly considerate of circumstances which may
properly mitigate guilt. To afford a remedy, it has always been
thought essential in popular Governments as well as in
monarchies, to vest in some other authority than the court's the
power to avoid particular judgments. It is a check entrusted to
the Executive for special cases. To exercise it to the extent of
destroying the deterrent effect of judicial punishment would be
to pervert it.
Seervai has also expressed the view that ``the power to grant
pardon conferred by Arts. 72 and 161 on the President and the
Governor of a State is designed to temper justice with mercy''.
When a public functionary holding a high elected office is
charged with indulging in corrupt practices and is convicted for
the same, it is justice that should prevail as finally decided by
the highest court. There appears to be no justification for mercy
in such a case.
V. Krishnamachari,
Mumbai
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : Opinion Previous : Best of luck, Dawaram Next : Kanpur riot aftermath | |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyrights © 2001 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|