Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research
Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878
CASE COMMENT ON EPURU SUDHAKAR V GOVT. OF
ANDHRA PRADESH1
Soumya Jena, KIIT School of Law
EQUIVALENT CITATIONS: (2006) 8 SC 321
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
In this case, the respondent is a Congress worker who was convicted for the murder of the
worker of the Telugu Desham party. PETITIONER NO. 2 who was purportedly killed by
RESPONDENT NO.2 while he was on bail in the homicide case PETITIONER NO.1's dad.
RESPONDENT NO.2 confronted the preliminary and the matter preceded the court.
The court forced 10 years' thorough detainment on the RESPONDENT NO.2. Later on,
RESPONDENT NO.3 spouse of RESPONDENT NO.2 recorded an application for award of
parole for 15 days before the legislative leader of state-Mr. Sushil Kumar Shinde, who was
pastor of force under the U.P.A government. The Governor conceded them reduction of the
unexpired sentence under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution. By the child of the killed
individual that Constitutional legitimacy of the Governor's party in power was tested in the
Andhra Pradesh High Court. After High Court subdued the request for absolving power by lead
representative. Then, at that point, a writ request was recorded bury alia under the steady gaze
of the Supreme Court asserting the award of reduction and claimed that it was unlawful, without
the use of psyche and no important material was set before the Governor and without the use
of brain upbraided request was passed. The sole premise on which the Respondent No.3
documented an application to concede pardon was affirmed suggestions in bogus cases because
of political competition.
LEGAL ISSUES:
1. Whether judicial review can be exercised to replace the presidential pardon?
2. What is the extent of the power of governor or president, as far as the pardoning power
1
(2006) 8 SC 321
1
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research
Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878
is concerned, is it an absolute power?
3. What are the responsibilities of the governor or president while exercising this
pardoning power under Indian Constitution?
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES:
PETITIONER- Epuru Sudhakar &Anr.
PETITIONER NO.1- Son of Lt. Sh. Epuru Ramasubbaiah.
PETITIONER NO.2- Son of Lt. Sh. Tirupati Reddy.
RESPONDENT- GOVT OF A.P. & ORS.
RESPONDENT NO.1- State.
RESPONDENT NO.2- Gowru Venkata Reddy.
RESPONDENT NO.3- is the wife of Gowru Reddy.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:
PETITIONER
The advice submits writ request under Article 32 of the Constitution of India documented by
the PETITIONERS entomb alias asserting that the award of reduction was unlawful.
The force of exculpation has been made decisively to the subject of legal survey. The law of
exoneration was contained in the Section 295 of the Government Of India Act which didn't
restrict the force of the Sovereign. In the Indian Constitution the absolving force of President
is vested on Article 72 of the Indian Constitution. It enables the President to allow pardons,
respites, rests or abatement of discipline in all situations where the discipline is for an offense
against any law to which the leader force of the association broadens. The equivalent is
additionally accessible against the sentences identified with the court-military and sentences of
death. An equal force or same measure of force is given to the Governor of the states under
Article 161 of the Indian Constitution. An exoneration might be outright or contingent. It could
be practiced whenever both sooner than crime procedures are taken or for the length of their
pendency or after conviction. The dismissal of one of the forgiveness request does now not
2
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research
Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878
exhaust the force of acquitting of the President. The force of exculpation under Article of the
Constitution was evaluated in the two milestone instances of Maru Ram v. Association of India
and Others2 and Kehar Singh v Union of India3. In Maru Ram case, the court while choosing
the legitimacy of the Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure that is analyzed under
the force of absolution under Article 72 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Bench of
Supreme Court held that the request underneath Article 72 of the Indian Constitution is to be
practiced on the counsel of the Central Government and presently not through the President all
alone, and that the exhortation of the Government ties the zenith of the Republic.
The acquitting force of the president isn't outright. It is represented by the exhortation of the
board of clergymen. The Constitution doesn't accommodate any system to scrutinize the
legitimates of the choices of the President or Governors practicing the benevolence ward.
Outright force can be abused by the gathering of priest and had encoded a layer of defilement.
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT NO.3 appeal to grant parole to RESPONDENT NO.2 in front of the Governor.
The learned counsel for the RESPONDENTS argued that political rivalry and fight is the
outcome. All the information and papers submitted before the Governor, who is the high
authority takes into consideration and judgement passed to grant remission. He also pointed
that the PETITIONERS has been confounded between the parole and the reduction. The court
ought not meddle as the materials that are existed are consider and abatement was conceded.
The writ request has the right to be excused thinking about the restricted degree for legal
survey.
In the kehar Singh case, the Supreme Court now not just excused an assessment anyway
additionally a writ appeal against the conviction and condemning. It makes reference to two
intentions in which force of the benevolence might be worked out. First being, a "shield towards
legal blunders". Second, it states "thought processes of country" as a ground. The court agenda
set out that the request for the president can not be exposed to legal audit on his merits other
than in the severe limits characterized inside the Maru Ram case. The President can possibly
investigate the proof on the document of the evildoer case, but can not change, change, or
2
3
Maru Ram v. Association of India and Others, 1981 (1) SCC 107.
Kehar Singh v Union of India, 1989 AIR 653.
3
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research
Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878
supplant the legal record. It has moreover been held that the President's ability to outfit pardon
is a demonstration of beauty, it can't be guaranteed as a be counted of right.
Later on account of Ashok Kumar V. Association of India4, the supposed clear irregularities
inside the view transformed into featured and the court held that the setting down clues may be
improper.
The appropriate sacred arrangements in regards to the stock of exoneration, abatement,
suspension of sentence, and numerous others. Through the President of India and the Governor
of a State are as per the following.
Article 161 of The Constitution Of India 1949- Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and
to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases the Governor of a State shall have the
power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or
commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a
matter to which the executive power of the State extends.
INTERPRETATION OF LAWS:
Article 72 of the Indian Constitution, 1949- In this article the President has the ability to
concede pardons, respites or reductions of discipline or to suspend indicted for any offence.
The arrangement relating to Article 72 in the Government of Indian Act was Section 295.
Article 161 of The Constitution Of India 1949 is also taken into considerations which explains
the power of Governor to grant pardon. It was applied looking for pardon for asserting that the
RESPONDENT NO.2 was ensnared in bogus cases because of political contention.
Article 32 of The Constitution of India 1949- In this article it explains the remedies that is used
for the requirement of freedoms gave by this part as the Supreme Court has the power to issue
writs. It was utilized to give the writ request that was tested the request passed by the
Government of A.P. It was documented by the PETITIONERS entomb alia claiming that the
award of abatement was unlawful.
Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure- It is applied in this case that it consists of the
power to suspend or dispatch sentences.
4
Ashok Kumar V. Association of India, 1991 SCR(2) 858.
4
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research
Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878
Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure- It is applied in this case that it consists of the
power to drive the sentences.
The Government of India without the assent of the individual sentence, drive a sentence for
thorough detainment. It is utilized to lessen the death sentence of the respondents.
Section 434 of the Code of Criminal Procedure- It gives simultaneous forces on the Central
Government if there should arise an occurrence of capital punishment.
Article 356 of The Constitution of India- It is utilized in this case because of the Government
not able to complete the work indicated by the Constitutional arrangements.
With regards to S.R Bommai and others V Union of India5, the decree testing the weight of
demonstrating on the State Government and challenging the burden of proving.
Article 74(2) of The Constitution of India- The inquiry whether any, and provided that this is
true what, guidance was offered by Ministers to the President will not be asked into in any
court.
Section 54 and Section 55 in the Indian Penal Code- It is used to commute the sentence of
detainment for life forever for each situation wherein sentence of detainment for will have been
passed, the proper Government may without the assent of the guilty party, drive the discipline
for detainment of one or the other depiction for term not surpassing fourteen years.
Section 302 in the Indian Penal Code-This section deals with the punishment for homicide
whoever commits murder and brushed off with sentence of death, or detainment forever and
will likewise responsible for fine.
Section 109 in the Indian Penal Code-
It is for the punishment of abatement if the
demonstration is abetted at time of outcomes.
Section 304(1) in the Indian Penal Code- Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder.
It has been used for the murder of the father of the PETITIONERS by the RESPONDENT
NO.2.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act- The weight on demonstrating the presence of such material
5
S.R Bommai and others V Union of India, 1994 3 SCC 1.
5
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research
Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878
would be on Union Government. At the point when the declaration is tested then the weight of
demonstrating is on the Government.
Section 14 and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act- It manages the forces presented to be
exercisable every now and then and an ability to issue, to incorporate ability to add to, alter,
fluctuate or revoke notices, requests, rules or bye-laws.
SUMMARY OF THE JUDGEMENT:
The Court in Criminal Appeals discarded the judgment of preliminary looked by
RESPONDENT NO.2 and the conviction was changed from one under Section 203 of IPC to
Section 304(1) read with Section 109 and custodial sentence of 10 years' thorough detainment
was forced. RESPONDENT NO.3 presented a portrayal for award of parole, it was award for
15 days and the equivalent was dropped by the State Government considering report sent the
Superintendent of Police. Because of pend-ency of the request for excuse, one month parole
was conceded. Legislative leader of A.P. practiced force under Article 161 and conceded
reduction of the unexpired sentence of RESPONDENT NO.2 and his request for discharge was
coordinated. After the writ appeal petitioned for charging that award of reduction of the
sentence by the Governor is unlawful since the important materials were not take into
contemplation. The said supplication couldn't have even been considered as a reason for award
of exoneration. It is a situation where materials existed which justified the award of abatement
and his Court ought not meddle regarding the present situation.
Learned advice for respondents presented that however in Maru Ram V Union of India 6, this
court had shown re-commendatory rules, the equivalent didn't discover acknowledgment in
Kehar Singh V Union of India7, Later on account of Ashok Kumar V. Association of India and
Ors8, the supposed obvious irregularities inside the view transformed into featured and the
court held that the setting down clues may be improper.
The relevant established arrangements in regards to the inventory of acquittal, reductions,
suspension of sentence, and numerous others.
Taking into contemplation of the cases, in Maru Ram case it was held that all open force
6
7
8
Maru Ram V Union of India, 1981 1SCC 107.
Kehar Singh V Union of India, 1989 1 SCC 204.
Ashok Kumar V. Association of India and Ors, 1991 SCR (2) 858.
6
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research
Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878
including sacred force will be practice self-assertively, malafide and rules for reasonable and
equivalent execution. Thought of additionally religion, rank, shading or political unwavering
are absolutely superfluous and full of segregation. In Kehar Singh case, it was held that the
request for President can't be exposed to legal survey on its benefits besides inside the severe
restrictions clarified in Maru Ram case. The Court held that the space of President's force under
Article 72 falls with legal area and can be inspected bu the Court by the method of legal audit.
Then, at that point, the decisions of the case Swaran Singh V State of U.P9, was taken into
contemplation.
The Court held that if the exculpation power was practice discretionary, malafide or in outright
negligence of the better standards of the constitutionalism, the side-effect request can't get the
endorsement of law and in such cases, the legal hand should be extended to it. It further saw
that the request for Governor censured is dependent upon legal survey with the severe
boundaries set down in Maru Ram and Kehar Singh case and left it open for the Governor of
U.P. to pass new requests.
It was additionally held that the High court can suppress lead representative exculpating power
in case it was practiced on political ground or position or strict thought. Allowing of leniency
by the President or Governor can be tested if the request has been passed without utilization of
psyche, malafide, superfluous or entirely unessential contemplation, experiences assertion, and
applicable material has been kept out of thought.
In Tata Cellular V The Federal Court of India10, held that when leading legal survey of the
official absolution, the court doesn't go about as an allure court since it needs insight in revising
authoritative choices, but instead inspects the manner by which choices are made. Thus, in
these cases referred to, it very well may be demonstrated that the court can lead legal survey of
the official exculpation to address uncalled for and subjective choices. Nonetheless, the degree
is restricted.
Thus in these cases, it very well may be demonstrated that the court can lead legal survey of
the official exculpation, to address uncalled for or subjective choices. Nonetheless, the
extension is restricted. The convict isn't involved however due to political reasons his name
was ensnared for the situation by delivering bogus observers and shipped off the prison. In the
9
10
Swaran Singh V State of U.P, 1998 4 SCC 75.
Tata Cellular V The Federal Court of India, 1996 AIR 11.
7
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research
Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878
prior days, there was a basic principle that if the lord is hoodwinked, the absolution is void.
The caution must be practiced on open contemplation alone. The guideline of elite awareness
would not have any significant bearing when and if the choice condemned is in disparagement
of sacred arrangements. The Rule of Law guideline contains a prerequisite of Government as
per law. The force of leader leniency isn't just to support the convict, yet while practicing such
a force the President or the Governor, all things considered, needs to remember the impact of
his choice on the group of the people in question, the general public all in all. Remember that
each part of the activity of the force under Article 72 as likewise under Article 161 doesn't fall
in the legal space. The courts need to guarantee that the authority is utilized in a way reliable
with the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law ought to be the general established legitimization for
legal audit.
CRITIQUE OF JUDGEMENT:
More or less, the judgment is one of vital significance as it answers whether legal audit over
official acquittal makes Article 72 excess in the negative.
From my examination, the invulnerability of the acquitting force of the lead representative from
legal audit has came up. Legal survey of request of the President or Governor under Article 72
or Article 161 of the Constitution as the request passed without utilization of psyche, request
is malafide, request is subjective and request passed on insignificant thought. It was held by
the Supreme Court that it is very much set rule that a restricted legal survey of activity of pardon
powers is accessible to the Supreme Courts and High Courts.
The High Court subdued the Governor absolving power as indicated by the candidates it was
practiced on political ground or standing or strict contemplation.
8