Author: Ashok Kumar Ratan, Assam University
Abstract
Epuru Sudhakar & Anr vs Govt. of A.P. & Ors (2006) is a landmark constitutional law judgment where the Supreme Court of India clarified the scope of judicial review over the Governor’s pardoning power under Article 161. The Court ruled that while the Governor has discretionary power to grant pardons, remissions, or commutations, this power is not absolute and can be challenged if exercised arbitrarily, mala fide, or without proper reasoning. The judgment reinforced constitutional checks on executive clemency, ensuring that such powers are not misused for political or extraneous considerations.
Facts of the case
On August 19, 1995, two individuals, Sh. Epuru Chinna Ramasubhai and Ambi Reddy were allegedly murdered by Gouru Venkata Reddy (Respondent No. 2). Petitioner Epuru Sudhakar, son of the deceased Sh. Epuru Chinna Ramasubhai filed a case against the respondent. Another petitioner, the son of Sh. Tirupati Reddy also alleged that his father was murdered by Gouru Venkata Reddy while the latter was on bail.
Respondent No. 2 was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, for murder. In Criminal Appeal No. 519-521 of 2003, he was tried for the two murders committed on October 19, 1995. However, in 2003, the appellate criminal court altered his conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304(1) IPC) read with Section 109 IPC. He was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
While Respondent No. 2 was in jail, his wife (Respondent No. 3) applied for his parole, which was initially granted for 15 days but later canceled due to a police report stating a likelihood of a breach of peace in the region. Subsequently, Respondent No. 3 contested and won the elections to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 2004. Upon her appointment as an MLA, she again requested parole for her husband, which was granted on May 19, 2004, and was further extended multiple times.
On October 10, 2004, Respondent No. 3 sought a pardon for her husband under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution, arguing that the case against him was politically motivated. Various Congress party members supported this plea, claiming that the case was a political conspiracy. While the pardon petition was pending, the parole was extended for a month on October 18, 2004. Finally, on August 11, 2005, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh granted remission of the unexpired sentence, leading to Respondent No. 2’s release.
The victims’ families challenged this decision, arguing that the pardon was granted due to political influence rather than on legal or humanitarian grounds. They approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which dismissed their plea, ruling that the Governor’s clemency power was beyond judicial review. Dissatisfied with this decision, they filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Raised
The case primarily revolved around the following legal questions:
Can the judiciary review the exercise of clemency powers under Articles 72 and 161?
Are there any constitutional limitations on the executive’s power to grant pardons?
What are the grounds on which a pardon can be challenged?
Principle and concept involved in this case
Pardoning power
The pardoning power of the executive is vested in the Governor and the President under Article 161 and Article 72, independently. The power of pardoning is a sanctioned act by which the executive head of the State, which can be the President of the nation or the Governor of the State, as the case may be, has the authority to forgive the con of the offence that was committed by them.
The pardoning power is an action of grace which emancipates from the power of someone assigned with the perpetration of laws, and such an act exempts the existent from the discipline that’s inflicted on him or her by law for a crime committed. In simple words, one can say that the term ‘pardon’ means the act of forgiving someone for a thing done or said by them. The pardoning power isn’t exercised arbitrarily by the administrative authorities but is subject to review by the bar.
The power of judicial review acts as a crucial aspect of the power and part of the bar, and it’s held that the powers of the administrative authorities cannot be exercised arbitrarily by them and that there shouldn’t be any kind of mala fide intentions of the authorities. The base of consideration while granting such a pardon/ remission shouldn’t be extraneous.
The pardoning power isn’t only an act of forgiveness but also an instrument that examines the philanthropic nature of discipline and encourages the reintegration of the convicts back into society. The principle of Blackstone’s rate, which states that it’s ‘Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer’, is followed in the judicial system of India, and the pardoning power is exercised following this principle.
Procedure and Grounds for Mercy Power in India
The power of mercy is a constitutional provision granted to the President of India (under Article 72) and the Governor of a state (under Article 161) to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment.
Procedure for Granting Mercy:
Filing of Mercy Petition
A convict or their representative submits a mercy petition to the President (for central offenses) or Governor (for state offenses).
The petition must contain detailed reasons for seeking clemency.
Initial Scrutiny
The Home Ministry (for the President) or State Home Department (for the Governor) reviews the petition and collects inputs from the judiciary, police, and prosecution.
Reports from the trial court, High Court, and Supreme Court (if applicable) are examined.
Recommendations by Government
The Home Ministry prepares a recommendation for the President or Governor.
The President or Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Maru Ram case (1980).
Final Decision by President/Governor
The President or Governor may accept or reject the petition.
The decision must be based on reasoned grounds and follow constitutional principles.
If rejected, no further appeal is possible except judicial review in case of arbitrariness, mala fide intent, or non-application of mind.
Grounds for Granting Mercy:
Humanitarian Considerations
If the convict is terminally ill, physically/mentally incapacitated, or has suffered extraordinary hardships in prison.
Undue Delay in Execution
If there is an unjustifiable delay in executing a death sentence or completing long-term imprisonment.
Example: Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), where the Supreme Court commuted death sentences due to an inordinate delay in deciding mercy petitions.
Age or Gender Factors
If the convict is very young or elderly, the government may consider clemency.
Pregnant women may also be granted mercy.
Doubt in Evidence or Legal Errors
If new facts emerge that raise doubts about the fairness of conviction.
If there were procedural lapses or miscarriages of justice in trial proceedings.
Political or Diplomatic Considerations
If the convict is a foreign national, diplomatic considerations may be taken into account.
Used in cases involving prisoner exchanges between countries.
Rehabilitation and Reform
If the convict has shown remorse, reformed in prison, or has a record of good conduct, mercy may be granted.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment
Judicial Review of Clemency Powers
The Supreme Court ruled that clemency powers are subject to judicial review and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The Court held that while the President and Governor enjoy broad powers under Article 72 and Article 161, these powers must be exercised in a manner that upholds the principles of constitutional morality, fairness, and justice.
Grounds for Judicial Review of Pardons
The Court outlined specific grounds on which a pardon can be challenged:
Arbitrariness or Mala Fide Intent: If the pardon is granted without proper reasoning or for illegitimate purposes.
Extraneous Considerations: If political, religious, or personal biases influence the decision.
Non-Application of Mind: If the executive authority does not properly examine the facts before granting clemency.
Violation of Constitutional Provisions: If the pardon contradicts fundamental principles of justice or fairness.
Setting Aside the Pardon
The Supreme Court set aside the Governor’s pardon because it was granted without adequate reasoning and due consideration of the nature and gravity of the crime. The Court emphasized that while clemency is a privilege of the executive, it must be exercised judiciously and not as a political tool.
FAQS
1. What was the main issue in the Epuru Sudhakar case?
The primary issue was whether the Governor’s exercise of clemency power under Article 161 of the Constitution was subject to judicial review.
2. What did the Supreme Court rule in this case?
The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor’s power to grant pardons is not absolute and can be reviewed by the judiciary if found arbitrary, influenced by extraneous considerations, or exercised without proper reasoning.
3. How does this judgment impact the exercise of clemency powers in India?
The judgment established that pardons must be granted with due process, fairness, and without political influence. It ensured that all clemency decisions could be challenged in courts to prevent misuse.
4. Can a pardon granted by the Governor be revoked by the judiciary?
Yes, the judiciary can revoke a pardon if it finds that it was granted on unconstitutional or arbitrary grounds, as seen in this case.
Impact of the Judgment
1. Strengthening Rule of Law
The ruling reinforced the principle that no authority, including the President or Governor, can act arbitrarily. It ensured that clemency powers remain transparent and accountable.
2. Precedent for Future Cases
The case set a legal precedent, ensuring that pardons could be challenged in court if granted without proper justification. This decision was later referenced in cases involving mercy petitions of death row convicts.
3. Protection Against Political Influence
By subjecting pardons to judicial scrutiny, the Court safeguarded against misuse of executive power for political gains.
References
Epuru Sudhakar & Anr vs Govt. of A.P. & Ors, (2006) 8 SCC 161.
Article 72 & 161, The Constitution of India, 1950.
Maru Ram vs Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107.
Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1.
Kehar Singh vs Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 204.
Constitutional Law of India, H.M. Seervai, Universal Law Publishing.
