OM PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before entering into the actual controversy which has been sought to be raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, which is in the light of the amendment which has been brought into effect in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 2015") and reference to it is for the purpose to derive the impact of it on the instant proceedings which has already culminated upto the stage contemplated under Articles 161 and 72(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, much prior in time than from the enforcements of the Act of 2015, whether it becomes relevant? After Article 161 which provides with the special executive powers to the Governor to grant pardon or to suspend, remit or conjoin a sentence in certain cases. Similarly, after culmination of proceedings under Article 72(1)(c) of the Constitution of India before the President of India, who exercises his executive powers to grant pardon etc. or suspend remit or commute a sentence, over and above the determination made after the Courts of law have concluded its proceedings of conviction.

(2.) This issue, it has been settled in Joy's case Narayan Dutt and Others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011 4 SCC 353, that the stage at which the Governor exercises the powers under Article 161 for pardoning a convict for commission of offence is a stage where the convict has already been determined and sentenced to undergo a punishment imposed by the "Court" competent under law, its at that stage that the provision contained under Article 161 is pleaded before the Governor to plead mercy from the punishment imposed on the convict by the Courts is invoked. Hence it has been held that it is exclusive administrative/executive power which could be exercised by Governor over or against, any law of the land contemplating a conviction of convict, after being sentenced by the Courts upto the level of Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus scope of judicial review after the stage under Article 161 or under Article 72(1)(c) of the Constitution of India is very limited.

(3.) Similarly is the powers vested with the President of India, under Article 72(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, which too grants an extraordinary executive constitutional powers to the President of India, to grant pardon or to suspend, remit or conjoin a sentence in relation to a person who has already been convicted or sentenced by the Courts' of the country upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, on establishment of a commission of an offence as per the provisions contained under the Indian Penal Code, that to and when the conviction has attained its judicial finality upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. Meaning thereby it's the liberty which is granted to the President of India, under the Constitution of India which is supreme, to be exercised after culmination of all the judicial proceedings. In the present case at hand, we are concerned with the powers of the President of India, which has already been exercised by the President of India under Article 72(1)(c) i.e. a right to pardon in cases where a person is convicted with, sentence of death (capital punishment).