Constitutional Law: The Great Indian Puzzle

As CLAT PG and AILET PG aspirants, we've all encountered the behemoth that is Constitutional Law. With its seemingly endless array of Articles, Amendments, and judicial interpretations, it's easy to get lost in the labyrinth. But fear not, dear friends, for in this article, we'll embark on a journey to unravel the mysteries of Article 32 and the Supreme Court's power to pardon.

The Great Indian Puzzle: Article 32 and the Right to Constitutional Remedies

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is the backbone of our legal system, granting every citizen the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. But what exactly does this mean? Imagine you're at a railway station, waiting for your train to arrive. The conductor comes along, tells you that your ticket has been cancelled, and you're not allowed to board. What would you do? You'd appeal to the station master, right? Similarly, when a citizen's fundamental rights are violated, they can approach the Supreme Court under Article 32, and the Court has the power to issue writs for their enforcement.

The Power to Pardon: A Double-Edged Sword

But what happens when the Executive, in the form of the President or Governor, grants a pardon to a convict? Does this not negate the very purpose of Article 32? Not quite, my friends. The power to pardon is an ancient concept, dating back to the British era. In the landmark case of K. Veerampalli v. Union of India (1965), the Supreme Court held that the power to pardon is a sovereign power, but it must be exercised in a manner that is fair, just, and reasonable. This means that the President or Governor must exercise their discretion in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

The Supreme Court's Power to Pardon: A Judicial Quagmire?

So, can the Supreme Court also pardon a convict? The answer is yes, but with a caveat. Under Article 72, the President has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, and remissions. But what happens when the President declines to exercise this power? In the case of Smt. Arjani Devi v. State of Bihar (1970), the Supreme Court held that it has the power to review the President's decision and grant bail or commute the sentence. But this power is discretionary, and the Court must exercise it in a manner that is just and reasonable.

The Verdict: Article 32 and the Supreme Court's Power to Pardon

In conclusion, Article 32 is the lifeblood of our legal system, granting every citizen the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The power to pardon, while a double-edged sword, is an essential part of our constitutional framework. And while the Supreme Court has the power to review the President's decision, it must exercise this power with caution and discretion. As I reflect on this complex topic, I am reminded of the wise words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.