The Significance of Clemency: Article 72 of the Indian Constitution

Understanding Article 72: President's Power to Pardon

The constitutional provision under Article 72 empowers the President of India to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment. This authority allows for the commutation of sentences for any person convicted of an offense. The power serves as a critical safeguard against potential judicial errors and offers relief in instances of excessively harsh sentences.

Rationale Behind the Power

The rationale for this presidential power is twofold:

• Correction of Judicial Errors: No judicial system is entirely foolproof. There are instances where an innocent individual may be wrongfully convicted, or the punishment may not align with the nature of the crime. The President's ability to pardon acts as a corrective measure for such judicial errors.
• Demonstration of Mercy: In cases where the circumstances surrounding a crime or the convict's background justify a lighter sentence or a full pardon, this power enables the exercise of mercy.

Case History Illustrating the Power

Several landmark cases highlight the application and limits of the President's power to pardon:

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): This case upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but established the "rarest of rare" doctrine, limiting its application to exceptional circumstances.
• Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court ruled that the President's power to pardon must be exercised based on the advice of the Council of Ministers, not through personal discretion.
• Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989): The court clarified that this power should not function as a parallel court of appeal and must respect the judicial process.
• Shatrughan Chauhan v. State of U.P. (2014): The Supreme Court commuted sentences for prisoners due to excessive delays in addressing their mercy petitions, emphasizing the importance of timely resolutions.

Specific Case: The Red Fort Incident

In the Red Fort case, the President's rejection of Mohammad Arif's mercy petition was grounded in prior judicial findings and the "rarest of rare" standard set forth in the Bachan Singh case. While Arif retains the option to challenge this decision in the Supreme Court, historical precedents indicate a limited scope for judicial review in such matters.

Additional Considerations

Exploring the constitutional basis and rationale further:

• Bachan Singh Case (1980) Guidelines: The Supreme Court emphasized that the death penalty should be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases, ensuring it is not applied in a "bloodthirsty" manner when life imprisonment would suffice.
• Red Fort Attack (2000): The incident involved a terrorist attack resulting in fatalities, leading to extensive trials and the arrest of Mohammad Arif.

Legal Perspectives on Mercy Power

The Law Commission Report (2015) recommended that the death penalty be abolished for all offenses except those related to terrorism. This highlights ongoing discussions about the appropriateness of capital punishment in contemporary India.

Options for Further Appeal

Arif can take his case to the Supreme Court, which has previously intervened in cases involving significant delays or procedural oversights in mercy petitions.

Conclusion

The criteria for imposing the death penalty in India are firmly anchored in the principle that it should only be applied in the "rarest of rare" instances, ensuring rigorous judicial oversight and constitutional protections. The President's power of clemency acts as a crucial final check in this process, guaranteeing that every facet of justice is thoroughly considered before executing the ultimate punishment.