Question Description
The Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed with the Central government’s suggestion that the court should wait till the President took a call on Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan’s mercy plea referred to him by the [X] for a decision. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai said the Centre had missed the obvious question posed by the court by a mile. The pertinent question was whether the Governor had, in the first place, the authority to refer the mercy plea to the President. Under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Governor was bound by the aid and advice given by the [Y] in September 2018 to the Governor to release Perarivalan, who has already served over 30 years of his life sentence. The Governor prima facie had no authority to transfer the mercy plea to the President. There was no role for the President here under the Constitution, the court told Additional Solicitor­General K.M. Nataraj, for the Centre. “We cannot shut our eyes to something that is happening against the Constitution. We have to follow our Bible — the Constitution of India,” Justice Rao addressed the Centre. Justice Gavai said no authority, however high, could put a spoke in the working of the Constitution. Mr. Nataraj urged the court, “The file has been referred by the Governor to the President. If the President refers it (mercy plea) back to the Governor, there is no need to discuss this issue at all... The President himself will decide if the Governor could have referred the file to him or not. Leave it to the President to take a call on whether to pardon or reject or send the file back to the Governor...”.Q. Which article addresses the pardoning power of the President of India?a)Article 71b)Article 72c)Article 73d)Article 74Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed with the Central government’s suggestion that the court should wait till the President took a call on Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan’s mercy plea referred to him by the [X] for a decision. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai said the Centre had missed the obvious question posed by the court by a mile. The pertinent question was whether the Governor had, in the first place, the authority to refer the mercy plea to the President. Under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Governor was bound by the aid and advice given by the [Y] in September 2018 to the Governor to release Perarivalan, who has already served over 30 years of his life sentence. The Governor prima facie had no authority to transfer the mercy plea to the President. There was no role for the President here under the Constitution, the court told Additional Solicitor­General K.M. Nataraj, for the Centre. “We cannot shut our eyes to something that is happening against the Constitution. We have to follow our Bible — the Constitution of India,” Justice Rao addressed the Centre. Justice Gavai said no authority, however high, could put a spoke in the working of the Constitution. Mr. Nataraj urged the court, “The file has been referred by the Governor to the President. If the President refers it (mercy plea) back to the Governor, there is no need to discuss this issue at all... The President himself will decide if the Governor could have referred the file to him or not. Leave it to the President to take a call on whether to pardon or reject or send the file back to the Governor...”.Q. Which article addresses the pardoning power of the President of India?a)Article 71b)Article 72c)Article 73d)Article 74Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed with the Central government’s suggestion that the court should wait till the President took a call on Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan’s mercy plea referred to him by the [X] for a decision. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai said the Centre had missed the obvious question posed by the court by a mile. The pertinent question was whether the Governor had, in the first place, the authority to refer the mercy plea to the President. Under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Governor was bound by the aid and advice given by the [Y] in September 2018 to the Governor to release Perarivalan, who has already served over 30 years of his life sentence. The Governor prima facie had no authority to transfer the mercy plea to the President. There was no role for the President here under the Constitution, the court told Additional Solicitor­General K.M. Nataraj, for the Centre. “We cannot shut our eyes to something that is happening against the Constitution. We have to follow our Bible — the Constitution of India,” Justice Rao addressed the Centre. Justice Gavai said no authority, however high, could put a spoke in the working of the Constitution. Mr. Nataraj urged the court, “The file has been referred by the Governor to the President. If the President refers it (mercy plea) back to the Governor, there is no need to discuss this issue at all... The President himself will decide if the Governor could have referred the file to him or not. Leave it to the President to take a call on whether to pardon or reject or send the file back to the Governor...”.Q. Which article addresses the pardoning power of the President of India?a)Article 71b)Article 72c)Article 73d)Article 74Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed with the Central government’s suggestion that the court should wait till the President took a call on Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan’s mercy plea referred to him by the [X] for a decision. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai said the Centre had missed the obvious question posed by the court by a mile. The pertinent question was whether the Governor had, in the first place, the authority to refer the mercy plea to the President. Under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Governor was bound by the aid and advice given by the [Y] in September 2018 to the Governor to release Perarivalan, who has already served over 30 years of his life sentence. The Governor prima facie had no authority to transfer the mercy plea to the President. There was no role for the President here under the Constitution, the court told Additional Solicitor­General K.M. Nataraj, for the Centre. “We cannot shut our eyes to something that is happening against the Constitution. We have to follow our Bible — the Constitution of India,” Justice Rao addressed the Centre. Justice Gavai said no authority, however high, could put a spoke in the working of the Constitution. Mr. Nataraj urged the court, “The file has been referred by the Governor to the President. If the President refers it (mercy plea) back to the Governor, there is no need to discuss this issue at all... The President himself will decide if the Governor could have referred the file to him or not. Leave it to the President to take a call on whether to pardon or reject or send the file back to the Governor...”.Q. Which article addresses the pardoning power of the President of India?a)Article 71b)Article 72c)Article 73d)Article 74Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed with the Central government’s suggestion that the court should wait till the President took a call on Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan’s mercy plea referred to him by the [X] for a decision. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai said the Centre had missed the obvious question posed by the court by a mile. The pertinent question was whether the Governor had, in the first place, the authority to refer the mercy plea to the President. Under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Governor was bound by the aid and advice given by the [Y] in September 2018 to the Governor to release Perarivalan, who has already served over 30 years of his life sentence. The Governor prima facie had no authority to transfer the mercy plea to the President. There was no role for the President here under the Constitution, the court told Additional Solicitor­General K.M. Nataraj, for the Centre. “We cannot shut our eyes to something that is happening against the Constitution. We have to follow our Bible — the Constitution of India,” Justice Rao addressed the Centre. Justice Gavai said no authority, however high, could put a spoke in the working of the Constitution. Mr. Nataraj urged the court, “The file has been referred by the Governor to the President. If the President refers it (mercy plea) back to the Governor, there is no need to discuss this issue at all... The President himself will decide if the Governor could have referred the file to him or not. Leave it to the President to take a call on whether to pardon or reject or send the file back to the Governor...”.Q. Which article addresses the pardoning power of the President of India?a)Article 71b)Article 72c)Article 73d)Article 74Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed with the Central government’s suggestion that the court should wait till the President took a call on Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan’s mercy plea referred to him by the [X] for a decision. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai said the Centre had missed the obvious question posed by the court by a mile. The pertinent question was whether the Governor had, in the first place, the authority to refer the mercy plea to the President. Under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Governor was bound by the aid and advice given by the [Y] in September 2018 to the Governor to release Perarivalan, who has already served over 30 years of his life sentence. The Governor prima facie had no authority to transfer the mercy plea to the President. There was no role for the President here under the Constitution, the court told Additional Solicitor­General K.M. Nataraj, for the Centre. “We cannot shut our eyes to something that is happening against the Constitution. We have to follow our Bible — the Constitution of India,” Justice Rao addressed the Centre. Justice Gavai said no authority, however high, could put a spoke in the working of the Constitution. Mr. Nataraj urged the court, “The file has been referred by the Governor to the President. If the President refers it (mercy plea) back to the Governor, there is no need to discuss this issue at all... The President himself will decide if the Governor could have referred the file to him or not. Leave it to the President to take a call on whether to pardon or reject or send the file back to the Governor...”.Q. Which article addresses the pardoning power of the President of India?a)Article 71b)Article 72c)Article 73d)Article 74Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed with the Central government’s suggestion that the court should wait till the President took a call on Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan’s mercy plea referred to him by the [X] for a decision. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai said the Centre had missed the obvious question posed by the court by a mile. The pertinent question was whether the Governor had, in the first place, the authority to refer the mercy plea to the President. Under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Governor was bound by the aid and advice given by the [Y] in September 2018 to the Governor to release Perarivalan, who has already served over 30 years of his life sentence. The Governor prima facie had no authority to transfer the mercy plea to the President. There was no role for the President here under the Constitution, the court told Additional Solicitor­General K.M. Nataraj, for the Centre. “We cannot shut our eyes to something that is happening against the Constitution. We have to follow our Bible — the Constitution of India,” Justice Rao addressed the Centre. Justice Gavai said no authority, however high, could put a spoke in the working of the Constitution. Mr. Nataraj urged the court, “The file has been referred by the Governor to the President. If the President refers it (mercy plea) back to the Governor, there is no need to discuss this issue at all... The President himself will decide if the Governor could have referred the file to him or not. Leave it to the President to take a call on whether to pardon or reject or send the file back to the Governor...”.Q. Which article addresses the pardoning power of the President of India?a)Article 71b)Article 72c)Article 73d)Article 74Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed with the Central government’s suggestion that the court should wait till the President took a call on Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan’s mercy plea referred to him by the [X] for a decision. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai said the Centre had missed the obvious question posed by the court by a mile. The pertinent question was whether the Governor had, in the first place, the authority to refer the mercy plea to the President. Under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Governor was bound by the aid and advice given by the [Y] in September 2018 to the Governor to release Perarivalan, who has already served over 30 years of his life sentence. The Governor prima facie had no authority to transfer the mercy plea to the President. There was no role for the President here under the Constitution, the court told Additional Solicitor­General K.M. Nataraj, for the Centre. “We cannot shut our eyes to something that is happening against the Constitution. We have to follow our Bible — the Constitution of India,” Justice Rao addressed the Centre. Justice Gavai said no authority, however high, could put a spoke in the working of the Constitution. Mr. Nataraj urged the court, “The file has been referred by the Governor to the President. If the President refers it (mercy plea) back to the Governor, there is no need to discuss this issue at all... The President himself will decide if the Governor could have referred the file to him or not. Leave it to the President to take a call on whether to pardon or reject or send the file back to the Governor...”.Q. Which article addresses the pardoning power of the President of India?a)Article 71b)Article 72c)Article 73d)Article 74Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed with the Central government’s suggestion that the court should wait till the President took a call on Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan’s mercy plea referred to him by the [X] for a decision. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai said the Centre had missed the obvious question posed by the court by a mile. The pertinent question was whether the Governor had, in the first place, the authority to refer the mercy plea to the President. Under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Governor was bound by the aid and advice given by the [Y] in September 2018 to the Governor to release Perarivalan, who has already served over 30 years of his life sentence. The Governor prima facie had no authority to transfer the mercy plea to the President. There was no role for the President here under the Constitution, the court told Additional Solicitor­General K.M. Nataraj, for the Centre. “We cannot shut our eyes to something that is happening against the Constitution. We have to follow our Bible — the Constitution of India,” Justice Rao addressed the Centre. Justice Gavai said no authority, however high, could put a spoke in the working of the Constitution. Mr. Nataraj urged the court, “The file has been referred by the Governor to the President. If the President refers it (mercy plea) back to the Governor, there is no need to discuss this issue at all... The President himself will decide if the Governor could have referred the file to him or not. Leave it to the President to take a call on whether to pardon or reject or send the file back to the Governor...”.Q. Which article addresses the pardoning power of the President of India?a)Article 71b)Article 72c)Article 73d)Article 74Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.