Kehar Singh vs Union of India | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Case Name: Kehar Singh vs Union Of India
• Citation: 1989 AIR 653, 1988 SCR Supl. (3)1102
• Date of the Case: December 16, 1988
• Appellant: Kehar Singh And Anr
• Respondent: Union Of India
• Bench/Judge: P Sathasivam, Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana
• Statutes/Constitution Involved: The Constitution Of India 1949, The Indian Penal Code
• Important Articles/Sections: Article 21, Article 72 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Facts of Kehar Singh vs Union of India

• Accusation: Kehar Singh, an Assistant in the Directorate General of Supply and Disposal in New Delhi, was accused of involvement in a plot to assassinate Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984.
• Legal Proceedings: In 1986, Kehar Singh was found guilty under Section 120-B and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, leading to a death sentence.
• Appeals: Despite multiple appeals and petitions, including one to the President under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution, Kehar Singh's requests for pardon were denied.
• President's Decision: The President declined to review the case, citing that the Supreme Court's decision had been finalized.
• Court Interventions: The Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court were involved in subsequent legal actions to prevent the execution of the death sentence.

Significance of the Case

• Constitutional Articles: The case centered around constitutional articles, particularly Article 21 safeguarding life and personal liberty, and Article 72 addressing the President's powers.
• Judicial Interpretation: The judgment in Kehar Singh vs Union of India has contributed significantly to the understanding of executive clemency and constitutional rights in India's legal landscape.

Example Explanation

• Understanding Legal Proceedings: In legal proceedings, different stages such as trial, appeal, and review petitions play crucial roles in determining the final outcome of a case.
• Presidential Pardon: Article 72 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President to grant pardons, but such decisions are subject to certain limitations, including not reviewing matters already adjudicated by higher courts.
• Court Interventions: The intervention of higher courts like the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court can provide avenues for legal redress and reconsideration of sentences.

Issues of Kehar Singh vs Union of India

• The case of Kehar Singh vs Union of India involves a written petition and a special leave petition presented under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
• A crucial question raised in this case is regarding the authority of the President, as per Article 72, to reconsider a matter already decided by the Supreme Court of India.
• The core concern of the petitioner revolves around understanding the extent of the President's power under Article 72 within the Indian constitutional framework.
• Another important aspect of the case is the query about the right to an oral hearing from the President, which is being sought through the application of Article 72 of the Indian Constitution.

Petitioner's Arguments in Kehar Singh v. Union of India

• The petitioner in the case of Kehar Singh v. Union of India raised several crucial points for consideration.
• The first argument put forth was that the President's review of the mercy petition was not thorough enough.
• It was highlighted that the basis for Kehar Singh's potential execution relied on circumstantial and inaccurate information.
• The petitioner firmly believed that the circumstances of the case warranted clemency and fell within the discretionary powers of the President.
• Furthermore, it was argued that the President retains the authority to assess the case's merits, even if a decision has been made by the Supreme Court.
• Lastly, the plea included a request to establish clear guidelines governing the pardon power's application to prevent arbitrary decisions.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondents in the case of Kehar Singh vs. Union of India presented several key arguments:
• The Attorney General contended that the authority vested in the President under Article 72 is not subject to judicial review. This implies that the President's power to grant clemency is beyond the purview of the courts.
• It was argued that the discretion to grant clemency is an exclusive prerogative of the President and should not be subject to interference by the judiciary.
• Furthermore, the Attorney General emphasized that the President exercises this power based on advice from the Executive, which should be free from external constraints.
• An important point raised was that if the President chooses not to provide reasons for a clemency decision, the Court lacks the authority to investigate the rationale behind the decision.

Related Provisions

Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949

• Protection of life and personal liberty: No individual can be deprived of their life or personal freedom except through a lawful procedure.

Article 72 in The Constitution Of India 1949

• Power of President to grant pardons, etc. and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases:
  • The President possesses the authority to provide pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment. Additionally, the President can suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person who has been convicted of an offense.
  • This power is applicable in various scenarios:
    • Instances where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial.
    • Instances where the punishment or sentence is for an offense against any law falling under the jurisdiction of the Union's executive power.
    • Instances where the sentence is a death sentence.
  • Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) does not impact the power to suspend, remit, or commute a death sentence, which can be exercised by the Governor of a State according to the prevailing laws.

Judgement in Kehar Singh vs Union of India

• In the legal case of Kehar Singh vs Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasized that the President of India has the authority to review a case's merits independently, regardless of previous court decisions.
• The court clarified that the President's exercise of power under Article 72 is subject to judicial review, falling under the court's jurisdiction.
• It was explicitly stated that a convicted individual does not have an inherent right to demand an oral hearing before the President.
• Following the verdict in Kehar Singh v Union of India, the Supreme Court temporarily suspended the death sentence imposed on Kehar Singh.
• This significant ruling affirmed the judiciary's role in overseeing the executive's grant of clemency and delineated the boundaries of the President's discretionary powers under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution.