MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on Wednesday directed the Centre to respond within 10 days on a PIL seeking to quash the Union Home Ministry's order clipping Governors of their clemency powers.
A Division bench of Justices R Sudhakar and VM Velumani gave the direction on the petition from I Michael, director of Arivar Theyam, an NGO based in Karaikudi.
The petitioner challenged the validity of the Union Home Ministry's direction issued way back in 1991, stripping Governors from exercising their clemency power once the President had rejected the plea.
The direction issued under article 257 (1) of the Constitution said once the President has rejected a plea of clemency under article 72 of the Constitution in a particular case involving death sentence, the Governor of a State could not subsequently exercise his jurisdiction under article 161 with respect to the same case, said the petitioner.
The direction also maintained that the convict couldn’t make a plea to the Governor even if there is a change of circumstances or availability of new materials.
The petitioner also observed that the direction was issued by the respondent when a mercy petition of one Daya Singh, a death-row convict, was pending before the Haryana Governor after his plea was rejected by the President.
However, when the delay on the part of the Governor in disposing off the mercy petition was challenged before the Supreme Court, the Court in its judgment dated April 1991 commuted the sentence into life imprisonment, he pointed out.
Thus the apex court had confirmed that even after the President rejects a mercy petition; the Governor has the power to pardon under article 161 of the Constitution. Hence, a bare reading of article 71 and 161 of the Constitution render it clear that the pardoning power of the President and the Governor with regard to a case involving death sentence is independent of one another, submitted Michael.
He also said the home ministry's direction was also against the federal structure envisaged in the Constitution. After listening to his arguments the bench directed the Union Home Ministry to respond on or before October 10.