9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the President is precluded from entering into the merits of a case decided finally by the Supreme Court when exercising powers under Article 72. 2. Whether judicial review extends to an examination of the order passed by the President under Article 72. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an oral hearing from the President on his petition invoking powers under Article 72. 4. Whether guidelines should be drawn up for regulating the exercise of the power under Article 72. 5. Reconsideration of the constitutional validity of the statutory provisions in the Indian Penal Code providing for the sentence of death. Summary: Issue 1: President's Power under Article 72 The Court examined whether the President is precluded from entering into the merits of a case decided by the Supreme Court when exercising powers under Article 72. The Court held that the President is entitled to scrutinize the evidence on the record of the criminal case and come to a different conclusion from that recorded by the court regarding the guilt and sentence imposed on the accused. The President acts under a constitutional power, which is entirely different from judicial power, and this does not amend or modify the judicial record. Issue 2: Judicial Review of President's Order The Court considered whether judicial review extends to examining the President's order under Article 72. It concluded that the order of the President cannot be subjected to judicial review on its merits except within the strict limitations defined in Maru Ram v. Union of India. The Court emphasized that it is within its jurisdiction to determine whether the President's act falls within the constitutional conferment of power. Issue 3: Right to Oral Hearing The Court addressed whether the petitioner is entitled to an oral hearing from the President on his petition under Article 72. It held that there is no right for the condemned person to insist on an oral hearing. The manner of consideration of the petition lies within the discretion of the President, who may decide how best to acquaint himself with all necessary information for its disposal. Issue 4: Guidelines for Exercise of Power under Article 72 The petitioners urged the Court to draw up guidelines to prevent arbitrary exercise of power under Article 72. The Court found that there is sufficient indication in the terms of Article 72, its historical context, and existing case law, making specific guidelines unnecessary. The power under Article 72 is of the widest amplitude and can contemplate various kinds and categories of cases. Issue 5: Reconsideration of Death Penalty Provisions An appeal was made to reconsider the constitutional validity of the death penalty provisions in the Indian Penal Code. The Court, bound by the law laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, decided not to reconsider the matter. The Attorney General highlighted that only a few sections of the IPC enable the imposition of the death penalty and that its imposition is an exception rather than the rule. Conclusion: The Court held that the petition invoking the President's power under Article 72 shall be deemed pending and must be dealt with afresh. The sentence of death imposed on Kehar Singh shall remain in abeyance meanwhile. The writ petitions and the special leave petition were concluded accordingly.
|
