Pardon in criminal law is an executive act of clemency by which the President or Governor completely absolves the convicted person from all punishment, disqualifications, and penalties attached to the conviction, as if the offence had never been committed. Under Indian law, the power to grant pardon is conferred on the President by Article 72 and on the Governor by Article 161 of the Constitution of India.
Legal definition
Article 72 of the Constitution of India provides:
Article 72(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.
Article 161: The Governor of a State 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 against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.
The key distinction: the President's power extends to court martial sentences and death sentences; the Governor's power does not extend to either.
Note: The tender of pardon to an accomplice under Section 306 CrPC (Section 343 BNSS) is a distinct concept — it is a judicial, not executive, act, and is conditional upon the accomplice providing testimony.
How courts have interpreted this term
Kehar Singh v. Union of India [(1989) 1 SCC 204]
The Supreme Court held that the President's power under Article 72 is not subject to judicial review on merits. The Court described the pardoning power as an act of grace and not a matter of right for the convict. However, the Court also held that the President must apply their mind to the petition and consider it on the materials available.
Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [(2006) 8 SCC 161]
The Supreme Court held that while the exercise of the pardoning power is not subject to judicial review on merits, it is susceptible to limited judicial scrutiny on the grounds of non-application of mind, mala fide exercise, extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations, or arbitrary decision-making. This represented a significant development in the law on executive clemency.
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India [(2014) 3 SCC 1]
The Supreme Court held that unreasonable delay in deciding a mercy petition by the President is itself a ground for commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court commuted the death sentences of several convicts due to the inordinate delay in deciding their mercy petitions, holding that such delay constitutes a form of torture under Article 21.
Types of executive clemency
Article 72 and 161 confer five distinct forms of clemency:
- Pardon: Completely absolves the convict from all punishment and disqualifications. The conviction stands, but all its consequences are wiped out.
- Commutation: Substitution of one form of punishment for a lighter form (e.g., death to life imprisonment).
- Remission: Reduction of the period of sentence without changing its character (e.g., reducing 14 years to 10 years).
- Respite: Awarding a lesser sentence due to special circumstances such as the convict's pregnancy, illness, or disability.
- Reprieve: A temporary stay of execution of the sentence, typically to allow time for filing a mercy petition.
Why this matters
The power of pardon represents the last constitutional safeguard for a convicted person after all judicial remedies have been exhausted. It is particularly significant in death penalty cases, where the President's mercy petition is the final hope for the condemned prisoner. The pardoning power serves as a check on the judicial system, acknowledging that justice may sometimes require executive intervention to correct possible judicial errors or to account for factors not considered by the courts.
For practitioners, the key practical issues are the scope of judicial review and the timeline for disposal. Following Epuru Sudhakar (2006), mercy petitions can be challenged if the decision is shown to be arbitrary or based on extraneous considerations. Following Shatrughan Chauhan (2014), unreasonable delay in disposal is itself actionable.
A common misunderstanding is that pardon erases the conviction. Technically, a pardon does not wipe out the judgment of the court — the conviction stands, but all its consequences (imprisonment, disqualifications, penalties) are removed. The pardoned person is treated as if they had never been punished.
Related terms
Specific types:
Related procedures:
Broader concept:
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between the President's and Governor's pardoning power?
The President's power under Article 72 extends to court martial sentences and death sentences; the Governor's power under Article 161 does not. Both can grant pardon for offences against laws within their respective executive domains (Union or State).
Can the President's pardon be challenged in court?
The Supreme Court in Epuru Sudhakar (2006) held that while the merits of the pardon decision are not judicially reviewable, the exercise of power can be challenged on grounds of non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, or arbitrariness.
Is there a time limit for deciding mercy petitions?
No statutory time limit exists. However, the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014) held that unreasonable delay in deciding a mercy petition is itself a ground for commutation of the death sentence, as prolonged uncertainty constitutes cruel treatment under Article 21.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.