Comprehension
“The power to pardon is a part of the constitutional scheme, and we have no doubt, in our mind, that it should be so treated also in the Indian Republic. It has been reposed by the people through the Constitution in the Head of the State, and enjoys high status. It is a constitutional responsibility of great significance, to be exercised when occasion arises in accordance with the discretion contemplated by the context. It is not denied, and indeed it has been repeatedly affirmed in the course of argument by learned counsels appearing for the Petitioner that the power to pardon rests on the advice tendered by the Executive to the President, who subject to the provisions of Art. 74(1) of the Constitution, must act in accordance with such advice......”
We are of the view that it is open to the President in the exercise of the power vested in him by Art. 72 of the Constitution to scrutinise the evidence on the record of the criminal case and come to a different conclusion from that recorded by the court in regard to the guilt of, and sentence imposed on the accused. In doing so, the President does not amend or modify or supersede the judicial record. The judicial record remains intact, and undisturbed. The President acts in a wholly different plane from that in which the Court acted. He acts under a constitutional power, the nature of which is entirely different from the judicial power and cannot be regarded as an extension of it. This is so, notwithstanding that the practical effect of the Presidential act is to remove the stigma of guilt from the accused or to remit the sentence imposed on him.
It is apparent that the power under Art. 72 entitles the President to examine the record of evidence of the criminal case and to determine for himself whether the case is one deserving the grant of the relief falling within that power. We are of opinion that the President is
entitled to go into the merits of the case notwithstanding that it has been judicially concluded by the consideration given to it by this Court. In Kehar Singh v. Union of India, 1989 SC, this court stated that the same obviously means that the affected party need not be given the reasons. The question whether reasons can or cannot be disclosed to the Court when the same is challenged was not the subject-matter of consideration. In any event, the absence of any obligation to convey the reasons does not mean that there should not be legitimate
or relevant reasons for passing the order.
[Extract from the judgment of Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India 2014 (3) SCC 1]
We are of the view that it is open to the President in the exercise of the power vested in him by Art. 72 of the Constitution to scrutinise the evidence on the record of the criminal case and come to a different conclusion from that recorded by the court in regard to the guilt of, and sentence imposed on the accused. In doing so, the President does not amend or modify or supersede the judicial record. The judicial record remains intact, and undisturbed. The President acts in a wholly different plane from that in which the Court acted. He acts under a constitutional power, the nature of which is entirely different from the judicial power and cannot be regarded as an extension of it. This is so, notwithstanding that the practical effect of the Presidential act is to remove the stigma of guilt from the accused or to remit the sentence imposed on him.
It is apparent that the power under Art. 72 entitles the President to examine the record of evidence of the criminal case and to determine for himself whether the case is one deserving the grant of the relief falling within that power. We are of opinion that the President is
entitled to go into the merits of the case notwithstanding that it has been judicially concluded by the consideration given to it by this Court. In Kehar Singh v. Union of India, 1989 SC, this court stated that the same obviously means that the affected party need not be given the reasons. The question whether reasons can or cannot be disclosed to the Court when the same is challenged was not the subject-matter of consideration. In any event, the absence of any obligation to convey the reasons does not mean that there should not be legitimate
or relevant reasons for passing the order.
[Extract from the judgment of Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India 2014 (3) SCC 1]
Question: 1
Which one of the following statements is correct with respect to the granting of pardon by the President?
Which one of the following statements is correct with respect to the granting of pardon by the President?
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- The power to grant pardon is a constitutional duty. Hence, judicial review is available, just as any executive action
- Granting pardon being the privilege of the President, no judicial review is available against the decision of the President in granting or refusing to grant a pardon
- The constitution expressly conferred the power to grant pardon to the President hence, the President is not bound to rely on the aid advice of the executive
- The President's power to grant pardon can be reviewed on the grounds of non-application of mind
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The President of India's power to grant pardon is outlined under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution. This power is distinct and separate from judicial action and does not serve to amend or override judicial decisions but exists on a different level. The President can examine the evidence, and the record of the criminal case, and make a decision independently.
However, this power is exercised based on the advice of the Executive, as per Article 74(1) of the Constitution. Nonetheless, this executive advice does not make the President's decision immune to judicial review.
The statement, "The President's power to grant pardon can be reviewed on the grounds of non-application of mind," is correct. This means the decision can be challenged if there is evidence that the President did not apply his mind, i.e., he did not adequately consider the merits of the case when deciding whether to grant the pardon.
In conclusion, while the power to grant pardon is a significant constitutional responsibility, it is subject to judicial scrutiny if the decision-making process is flawed, ensuring checks and balances within the framework of the Indian legal system.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
In the above case the Supreme Court held that a minimum period of _______ days be stipulated between the receipt of communication of the rejection of the mercy petition and the scheduled date of execution.
In the above case the Supreme Court held that a minimum period of _______ days be stipulated between the receipt of communication of the rejection of the mercy petition and the scheduled date of execution.
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- 15
- 30
- 14
- No such time was fixed
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The Supreme Court in the case of Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India held that a minimum period of 14 days must be stipulated between the receipt of the communication of the rejection of the mercy petition and the scheduled date of execution. This decision ensures a fair opportunity for the convict to prepare for the execution and to have a final meeting with their family. This period allows not only for the convict to mentally prepare but also enables any potential legal remedy to be sought within this time frame. The requirement of 14 days reflects a humane approach in the administration of the death penalty, ensuring that the rights and dignity of the person concerned are respected even until the end.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
What is not true about Art. 21 of Constitution of India?
What is not true about Art. 21 of Constitution of India?
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- Insanity is not a relevant supervening factor for commutation of death sentence
- Right to life of a person continues till his last breath and that Court will protect that right even if the noose is being tied on the condemned person's neck
- The anguish of alternating hope and despair, the agony of uncertainty and the consequence of such suffering on the mental, emotional and physical integrity and health violates Art. 21 of the prisoners
- Art. 21 is a substantive right and not merely procedural
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
In the context of the Indian Constitution, Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This right is fundamental and not merely procedural. Let's evaluate the provided statement regarding Article 21 to determine which is not true:
- The statement "Insanity is not a relevant supervening factor for commutation of death sentence" is the one that is not true. In fact, insanity is considered a significant factor that can lead to the commutation of a death sentence, following legal precedents and humanitarian considerations. Therefore, this statement does not align with the interpretation of Article 21.
- The statement "Right to life of a person continues till his last breath and that Court will protect that right even if the noose is being tied on the condemned person's neck" aligns with Article 21, emphasizing the Court's role in safeguarding life rights until the very end.
- The statement "The anguish of alternating hope and despair, the agony of uncertainty and the consequence of such suffering on the mental, emotional and physical integrity and health violates Art. 21 of the prisoners" accurately reflects the concern for the mental and physical well-being under Article 21, which includes prisoners' rights against suffering due to protracted legal processes.
- "Art. 21 is a substantive right and not merely procedural" correctly identifies Article 21 as a substantive right, indicating its fundamental nature in protecting personal liberty and life beyond procedural bounds.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
In which case, the Supreme Court held that if the crime is brutal and heinous and involves the killing of a large number of innocent people without any reason, delay cannot be the sole factor for the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment?
In which case, the Supreme Court held that if the crime is brutal and heinous and involves the killing of a large number of innocent people without any reason, delay cannot be the sole factor for the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment?
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT) of Delhi
- V. Sriharan Murugan v. Union of India
- Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra
- Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The Supreme Court case that held if a crime is brutal and involves killing a large number of innocent people, delay alone cannot justify commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment is Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT) of Delhi. This was a landmark judgment wherein the court deliberated that exceptionally heinous crimes might warrant ignoring delay as a mitigating factor for sentencing mercy. The court's rationale emphasized the necessity of considering the severity and brutality of the crime beyond the procedural delays involved in sentencing. This judicial perspective aligns with understanding the constitutional power of pardon not as an automatic entitlement but contingent on justice and the nature of the crime itself. The case of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar became pivotal in reasserting this approach within Indian jurisprudence, stressing the balance between mercy and justice in extreme cases.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
The President's power to grant a pardon
The President's power to grant a pardon
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- Can be delegated to the Council of Ministers
- Cannot be delegated as it is an essential legislative function
- Cannot be delegated as it is expressly conferred on the President
- Can be delegated to the Vice-president in the absence of the President
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The question pertains to the President's power to grant a pardon. In the context of the Indian Constitution, this power is significant and carries constitutional weight, as explained in legal precedents like Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India 2014 (3) SCC 1.
The correct answer is that the President's power to grant a pardon cannot be delegated as it is expressly conferred on the President. This is evident because:
- Constitutional Authority: The power to grant pardons is vested in the President by Article 72 of the Indian Constitution. It is a constitutional responsibility designated specifically to the President, highlighting its importance and the trust placed in the head of state.
- Non-delegable Function: As stated in the judgment, this power is an integral part of the constitutional scheme and therefore cannot be delegated to other authorities such as the Council of Ministers or the Vice-President. It is distinct from the legislative or judicial powers and operates independently on a different constitutional plane.
- Executive Advice: Although the power rests with the President, it is exercised on the advice of the Executive under Article 74(1) of the Constitution. However, the nature of this power remains non-delegable because it is a unique constitutional trust endowed specifically on the President.
In summary, the power to pardon is a distinguished constitutional power that the President exercises independently of judicial processes, based on an advisory framework with the Executive. Thus, it is non-delegable and retains its exclusivity to the office of the President.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Constitutional Laws
- Which article of the Indian Constitution abolishes untouchability?
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- Mass Communication and Journalism
- Constitutional Laws
- Which part of the Indian Constitution deals with the Fundamental Rights?
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- Mass Communication and Journalism
- Constitutional Laws
- During which period was the 'Meri Mati Mera Desh' programme held?
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- Mass Communication and Journalism
- Constitutional Laws
Match List-I with List-II
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Constitutional Laws
- Identify the descending order in which the following sources of International law are mentioned in Article 38 (1) of the statute of International Court of Justice: (A) Judicial Decisions
(B) General Principles of International Law
(C) Treaties
(D) International Customs Choose the correct answer from the options given below:- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Constitutional Laws
View More Questions
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu’ 2008(3) Apex Court Judgements 232 (SC), while granting the custody to the maternal grandparents observed: In our judgement, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well settled and it is this. In deciding a difficult and complex question as to custody of minor, a Court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane problem in live in relationship and is required to be solved with human touch. A Court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the Court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, may bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable consideration. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgement, the Court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the Court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal’-(2009)1 SCC 42, while giving paramount importance to the welfare of the child, which should include moral and ethical values, besides ethical well-being, observed as under:
When the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. The Court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor. As observed recently in Mausami Moitra Ganguli case, the Court has to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings, but over and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values have also to be noted. They are equal if not more important than the others.
(Extracts from Jaswinder Singh and Another vs Surjit Singh, AIR 2010 (NOC) 425 (P. & H.))- CLAT PG - 2025
- Family Laws
- The Companies Act, 2013 does not deal with insolvency and bankruptcy when the companies are unable to pay their debts or the aspects relating to the revival and rehabilitation of the companies and their winding up if revival and rehabilitation is not possible. In principle, it cannot be doubted that the cases of revival or winding up of the company on the ground of insolvency and inability to pay debts are different from cases where companies are wound up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013. The two situations are not identical. Under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013, even a running and financially sound company can also be wound up for the reasons in clauses (a) to (e). The reasons and grounds for winding up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 are vastly different from the reasons and grounds for the revival and rehabilitation scheme as envisaged under the IBC. The two enactments deal with two distinct situations and in our opinion, they cannot be equated when we examine whether there is discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the revival and rehabilitation of the companies, certain sacrifices are required from all quarters, including the workmen. In case of insolvent companies, for the sake of survival and regeneration, everyone, including the secured creditors and the Central and State Government, are required to make sacrifices. The workmen also have a stake and benefit from the revival of the company, and therefore unless it is found that the sacrifices envisaged for the workmen, which certainly form a separate class, are onerous and burdensome so as to be manifestly unjust and arbitrary, we will not set aside the legislation,solely on the ground that some or marginal sacrifice is to be made by the workers. We would also reject the argument that to find out whether there was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or whether the right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India was infringed, we must word by word examine the waterfall mechanism envisaged under the Companies Act, 2013, where the company is wound up in terms of grounds (a) to (e) of Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013; and the rights of the workmen when the insolvent company is sought to be revived, rehabilitated or wound up under the Code. The grounds and situations in the context of the objective and purpose of the two enactments are entirely different.
(Extracted, with edits and revision, from the judgement in Moser Baer Karamchari Union Thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Union of India and Ors, 2023 SCC Online SC 547)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Company Law
- The elements of tort of negligence consist in – (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Hence, three ingredients are necessary for the existence of a duty of care: (i) foreseeability of the damage, (ii) proximity of relationship between the parties; and (iii) whether it is “just, fair and reasonable” that the law should impose a duty of care. In Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman, 1990 2AC 605, the court held that breach of duty is concerned with the standard of care that ought to have been adopted in the circumstances and whether the defendant’s conduct fell below that standard i.e., whether he was careless.
The court while quoting Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997 stated that as a tort, negligence consists of legal duty to take care and breach of that duty. Duty determines whether the type of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the particular way in which to occurred can ever be actionable. The division of negligence into duty, breach and consequent damage is convenient for the purpose of exposition but it can be confusing because the issues will often overlap. The process of determining a breach of duty involves three steps: First, it is necessary to ascertain the qualities of the reasonable person, given the qualities attributed to him, would have taken in the circumstances. The factors that are permissible to take into account in this regard are prescribed by law, but the amount of care that the reasonable person would have taken is a question of fact. Thirdly, it must be determined whether the defendant took less care than the reasonable person would have taken.
(Extracts from Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Deepti Singh and Ors., 2019 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Law of Torts
- Live-in relationship, as such, as already indicated, is a relationship which has not been socially accepted in India, unlike many other countries. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P. [(2006) 5 SCC 475: (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 478] it was observed that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterosexual sex does not amount to any offence even though it may be perceived as immoral. However, in order to provide a remedy in civil law for protection of women, from being victims of such relationship, and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society, first time in India, the DV Act has been enacted to cover the couple having relationship in the nature of marriage, persons related by consanguinity, marriages, etc. We have few other legislations also where reliefs have been provided to woman placed in certain vulnerable situations. Section 125 Cr.P.C. of course, provides for maintenance of a destitute wife and Section 498-A IPC is related to mental cruelty inflicted on women by her husband and in-laws. Section 304-B IPC deals with the cases relating to dowry death. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was enacted to deal with the cases of dowry demands by the husband and family members. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides for grant of maintenance to a legally wedded Hindu wife, and also deals with rules for adoption. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 refers to the provisions dealing with solemnisation of marriage also deals with the provisions for divorce. For the first time, though, the DV Act, Parliament has recognised a “relationship in the nature of marriage” and not a live-in relationship simpliciter. We have already stated, when we examine whether a relationship will fall within the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” within the meaning of Section 2(f ) of the DV Act, we should have a close analysis of the entire relationship invariably, it may be a question of fact and degree, whether a relationship between two unrelated persons of the opposite sex meets the tests judicially evolved.
(This extract is taken from Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Family Laws
- The environmental rule of law, at a certain level, is a facet of the concept of the rule of law. But it includes specific features that are unique to environmental governance, features which are sui generis. The environmental rule of law seeks to create essential tools such as conceptual, procedural and institutional, to bring structure to the discourse on environmental protection. It does so to enhance our understanding of environmental challenges of how they have been shaped by humanity’s interface with nature in the past, how they continue to be affected by its engagement with nature in the present and the prospects for the future, if we were not to radically alter the course of destruction which humanity’s actions have charted.
The environmental rule of law seeks to facilitate a multi-disciplinary analysis of the nature and consequences of carbon footprints and in doing so it brings a shared understanding between science, regulatory decisions and policy perspectives in the field of environmental protection. It recognises that the “law” element in the environmental rule of law does not make the concept peculiarly the preserve of Lawyers and Judges. On the contrary, it seeks to draw within the fold all stakeholders in formulating strategies to deal with current challenges posed by environmental degradation, climate change and the destruction of habitats. The environmental rule of law seeks a unified understanding of these concepts. There are significant linkages between concepts such as sustainable development, the polluter pays principle etc. The universe of nature is indivisible and integrated. The state of the environment in one part of the earth affects and is fundamentally affected by what occurs in another part. Every element of the environment shares a symbiotic relationship with the others. It is this inseparable bond and connect which the environmental rule of law seeks to explore and understand in order to find solutions to the pressing problems which threaten the existence of humanity. The environmental rule of law is founded on the need to understand the consequences of our actions going beyond local, State and national boundaries. The rise in the oceans threatens not just maritime communities. The rise in temperatures, dilution of glaciers and growing desertification have consequences which go beyond the communities and creatures whose habitats are threatened. They affect the future survival of the entire eco-system. The environmental rule of law attempts to weave an understanding of the connections in the natural environment which make the issue of survival a unified challenge which confronts human societies everywhere.
(Extract from Pragnesh Shah v. Arunkumar Sharma (2022) 11 SCC 493 )- CLAT PG - 2025
- Environmental Law
View More Questions