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.
AIR 1983 SC 130, (1983) 1 SCC 305
Pension is a right, not a bounty or gratuitous payment. Classification of pensioners into pre- and post-cutoff date categories for…
Read Analysis(2007) 8 SCC 669
Municipal bodies have a statutory duty to provide basic civic services. Failure to provide water supply, sanitation, and roads is…
Read Analysis(1982) 1 SCC 618
Equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal derivable from Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) read together.
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.