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