Kehar Singh vs Union of India

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

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

This landmark case of Kehar Singh vs Union of India, heard on December 16, 1988, involved Kehar Singh as the appellant and the Union of India as the respondent. The bench, comprising P Sathasivam, Ranjan Gogoi, and N.V. Ramana, dealt with constitutional and penal code issues.

The case delved into crucial constitutional articles, primarily Article 21, which pertains to the protection of life and personal liberty, and Article 72, addressing the President’s powers. The judgment, outlined in the citations 1989 AIR 653 and 1988 SCR Supl. (3)1102, holds significance in shaping the jurisprudence surrounding executive clemency and constitutional rights.

Facts of Kehar Singh vs Union of India

Kehar Singh worked as an Assistant in the Directorate General of Supply and Disposal in New Delhi. He was accused of being involved in a plot to assassinate the then Prime Minister, Smt Indira Gandhi, on October 31, 1984. Two years later, on January 22, 1986, Kehar Singh was found guilty of a crime under Section 120-B, along with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Additional Sessions Judge in New Delhi sentenced him to death. Kehar Singh appealed to challenge the death sentence, but the Delhi High Court rejected the appeal. He then made a further appeal to the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition, which was also dismissed. Despite attempts with a review petition and a writ petition, these were also dismissed.

Shortly afterward, Kehar Singh’s son, Rajinder Singh, submitted a petition to the President of India seeking pardon for Kehar Singh under Article 72 of the Constitution of India. The basis for the pardon request was the claim of innocence and an assertion that the court’s decision was incorrect. The petition also requested an opportunity for Kehar Singh’s representatives to meet with the President and explain the situation. Kehar Singh’s counsel sent several emails to the President on the same matter. However, the President rejected the petition under Article 72, stating that he could not review the merits of a case already decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Following the rejection of the mercy petition, Rajinder Singh filed a petition with the Delhi High Court to prevent the execution of the death sentence. Unfortunately, the High Court dismissed this petition. Immediately after this dismissal, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition under Article 32. The court decided to hear the writ petition and directed that the execution of Kehar Singh should be put on hold in the meantime.

Issues of Kehar Singh vs Union of India

The applicant in Kehar Singh versus Union of India has submitted a written petition and a special leave petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The key question raised is whether the President, under Article 72, possesses the authority to consider the merits of a case that has already been decided by the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner is seeking clarification on the scope of the President’s power under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution.

Furthermore, the petitioner in Kehar Singh vs Union of India is questioning whether they are entitled to an oral hearing from the President as part of their petition, based on the invocation of powers under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners in Kehar Singh v. Union of India raised the following points:

• The petitioner contends that the President did not thoroughly consider the submitted mercy petition.
• The argument emphasises that the evidence leading to Kehar Singh’s potential execution is based on circumstantial and erroneous information.
• It is asserted that the case warrants relief and falls within the discretionary powers of the President.
• The petitioner asserts that the President has the right to examine the merits of the case, even if it has already been judicially decided by the Supreme Court.
• Additionally, the plea requests the establishment of guidelines to regulate the exercise of the pardon power, preventing arbitrary use.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents in Kehar Singh vs Union of India raised the following points:

• The Attorney General asserts that the power exercised under Article 72 is not subject to judicial review.
• It is argued that the authority to grant clemency exclusively belongs to the President and is beyond the scope of judicial interference.
• The Attorney General highlights that the President’s power is exercised based on advice tendered by the Executive, which should be unrestricted.
• The argument stresses that if the President provides no reasons for the decision, the Court cannot inquire about the rationale behind it.

Related Provisions

Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949

21. Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or individual liberty except according to procedure established by law

Article 72 in The Constitution Of India 1949

“72. Power of President to grant pardons, etc. and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases

(1) The President 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

(a) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial;

(b) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power   of the Union extends;

(c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death

(2) Noting in sub-clause (a) of Clause ( 1 ) shall affect the power to suspend, remit or commute a sentence of death exercisable by the Governor of a State under any law for the time being. In force.”

Judgement in Kehar Singh vs Union of India

In Kehar Singh vs Union of India, the Supreme Court underscored that the President holds the prerogative to assess the merits of a case, irrespective of its prior judicial resolution. The court explicitly declared that the scope of the President’s authority under Article 72 is open to judicial scrutiny, falling squarely within the domain of the court’s purview. Furthermore, the ruling clarified that a convicted individual does not possess an inherent right to insist on an oral hearing before the President.

Notably, the court in Kehar Singh v Union of India ordered a temporary suspension or  abeyance, of the death sentence directed towards Kehar Singh. This pivotal decision by the Supreme Court effectively resolves the petition, affirming the judiciary’s role in scrutinising the exercise of executive clemency and delineating the contours of the President’s discretionary powers under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution.