Governors’ mercy powers

Context- Supreme Court expressed unhappiness over the pendency of a plea by A G Perarivalan with the Governor of Tamil Nadu Banwarilal Purohit for over two years.

What was the Supreme Court’s verdict over governor delay in deciding the plea for pardon?

Supreme Court statement – Multi-Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) investigation into the “larger conspiracy” behind Rajiv Gandhi assassination need not deter the Tamil Nadu Governor from deciding the plea for pardon of convicts like A.G. Perarivalan.

• The court made it clear that it was reluctant to exercise its jurisdiction when the Governor was already seized of Perarivalan’s plea for pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution.
• Background- Perarivalan had applied to the Governor for pardon on December 30, 2015. Almost three years later, on September 2018, the Supreme Court asked the Governor to decide the pardon plea as he “deemed fit”.

What are the pardoning powers of the Governor?

Article 161 deals with the Pardoning Power of the Governor.

• The Governor can grant pardons, reprieves, respites and remissions of punishments or suspend, remit and commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the state extends.
• The Governor cannot Pardon a Death Sentence. (The President has the power of Pardon a death Sentence).

What were the past judicial stands?

1. The advice of the appropriate Government binds the Head of the state.

• Maru Ram v Union of India case (1980) –Even though the President and Governor are the executive heads, but they cannot exercise their discretion with regard to their powers under Articles 72 and 161. Both the executive heads are required to act on the advice of the appropriate government–Central and State Government.
• The court followed Maru Ram’s case wherein it was held that the state government can advise the governor who is bound to take it.

2. Undue delay in execution of mercy petition-

• Shatrugan Chouhan v. Union of India– Undue delay would entitle the death convict to seek relief under Article 32 r/w Article 21 get his death sentence commuted.
• Inordinate delay caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the death convict and which is caused by the authorities for no reasonable ground”, the court should itself commute the sentence rather than “remanding matter for reconsideration of mercy petition”.

3. Constitutional functionaries are not exempt from judicial scrutiny–

• Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon’ble Speaker (2020) – the Supreme Court was asked to examine the Speaker’s inaction with regard to disqualification proceedings.

Way forward-

• Undue, inordinate and unreasonable delay in execution of death sentence has dehumanizing effects.
• The mercy petitions under Article 72/161 should be disposed of at a much faster pace than what is adopted now, if the due procedure prescribed by law is followed in verbatim.