केहर सिंह बनाम भारत संघ
| Citation | AIR 1989 SC 653, (1989) 1 SCC 204 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) |
| Date | 16 December 1988 |
| Year | 1989 |
| Bench | R.S. Pathak CJI, E.S. Venkataramiah, Ranganath Misra, M.N. Venkatachaliah, N.D. Ojha JJ. |
| Acts/Articles | Article 72, Article 21, Article 32 |
| Category | Constitutional Law, Criminal Law |
Key Principle Established
Presidential pardon power under Article 72 is wide enough to examine even the merits of the conviction. The President can go into the evidence and re-examine the case.
Kehar Singh was convicted for conspiracy in the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and sentenced to death. After all appeals were dismissed, a petition for presidential pardon under Article 72 was filed. The question arose about the scope and nature of the presidential pardon power.
The Constitution Bench held that the President’s power under Article 72 is very wide and includes the power to examine the merits of the case, including the evidence. The President is not bound by the views of the judiciary and can form an independent opinion. However, the President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
This judgment defined the scope of presidential clemency power in India. It established that Article 72 provides a separate and independent remedy beyond judicial proceedings, and that the President can re-examine the entire case on merits. Read with Epuru Sudhakar (2006), it provides a complete framework for pardon jurisprudence.
(1984) 3 SCC 243
Release of bonded labourers without rehabilitation is cruelty. The State must ensure identification, release AND rehabilitation of bonded labourers.
Read AnalysisAIR 1967 SC 1836
Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21. Refusal or impounding of passport without following due process…
Read AnalysisAIR 1993 SC 1960
State is liable to pay compensation for custodial death as a public law remedy under Article 32/226, independent of any…
Read AnalysisThis judgment summary is for educational and research purposes. While care has been taken to accurately represent the ratio and findings, for authoritative reference always consult the original judgment text from official sources (SCC Online, AIR, Manupatra, or court websites).
22+ years of practice before Punjab & Haryana High Court and Supreme Court of India.