{"id":33868,"date":"2024-03-12T13:06:57","date_gmt":"2024-03-12T13:06:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/edukemy.com\/blog\/?p=33868"},"modified":"2024-03-12T13:06:59","modified_gmt":"2024-03-12T13:06:59","slug":"discuss-the-question-of-the-death-sentence-and-presidential-clemency","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/edukemy.com\/blog\/discuss-the-question-of-the-death-sentence-and-presidential-clemency\/","title":{"rendered":"Discuss the question of the death sentence and Presidential clemency"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/a>
Refer & Earn NOW<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Article 72 (1)(c)<\/strong> of the Constitution empowers the President<\/strong> to grant pardons<\/strong>, reprieves<\/strong>, respites<\/strong>, or remission<\/strong> of punishment, as well as to suspend<\/strong>, remit<\/strong>, or commute<\/strong> the sentence of any individual convicted of an offence punishable by death<\/strong>. Specifically, the President holds exclusive authority<\/strong> to grant pardon<\/strong> in cases where the imposed sentence is death<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the years, the Supreme Court<\/strong> has introduced significant modifications to the President’s pardoning power<\/strong>. In the Bachan Singh Case (1983)<\/strong>, the court determined that while the imposition of the death penalty<\/strong> did not contravene Articles 14 or 21<\/strong> of the Constitution, it should be reserved for the ‘rarest of rare<\/strong>‘ cases. The Kehar Singh Case (1989)<\/strong> further affirmed that the President, under Article 72<\/strong>, has the prerogative to scrutinize the evidence on record and make decisions regarding the sentence<\/strong>. This includes the President’s entitlement to delve into the merits of a case<\/strong>, even if it has already been judicially concluded by the Supreme Court<\/strong>. The court in this instance established that the President<\/strong> could even choose to hear the convict orally<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, a landmark decision by the Supreme Court in 2001<\/strong> regarding Presidential Clemency<\/strong> stipulated that considerations such as caste, religion, and political loyalty<\/strong> should not influence decisions on clemency<\/strong>. Subsequently, in 2006<\/strong>, the Supreme Court<\/strong> asserted that the power of Presidential and Gubernatorial Pardon<\/strong> is subject to judicial review<\/strong> and cannot be dispensed with incompletely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n