Moot Court Memorial (appellants)

1|Memorandum on behalf of Appellants

INTRA DEPARTMENTAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018 Faculty of Law, MDU Rohtak Team code: In the Supreme Court of India Criminal appeal No.263/07 Writ petition No. 169/07 and 432/07

Robert Smith in Appeal (Criminal) No. 263/07 Union of India in Writ Petition NO. 169/07 XYZ Party in Writ Petition No. 432/07

...................Appellants

v. State of Maharashtra in Appeal (Criminal) No. 263/07 and Writ Petition No. 432/07 Ram Singh Sabharwal in Writ Petition No. 169/07

....................Respondents

2|Memorandum on behalf of Appellants

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents List of abbreviations Index of authorities Statement of jurisdiction Statement of facts Issues for Consideration Arguments advanced Prayer for Relief

3|Memorandum on behalf of Appellants

List of Abbreviations Anr. – Another Art. – Article A.P. – Andhra Pradesh C.J. – Chief Justice Govt. – Government J&K – Jammu and Kashmir Lt. – lieutenant NDPS - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances SLP – Special Leave Petition U.P. – Uttar Pradesh

4|Memorandum on behalf of Appellants

Index of Authorities

Cases referred : Biddle v. Perovich 71 L.Ed. 1161 Epuru Sudhakar &Anr. v. Govt. of A.P. & ors. AIR (2006) SC 3385 Ex Parte Philip Grossman 267 US 87(1925) G. Krishna Goud v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1975 SC Kehar Singh v. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 653 Kuljeet Singh v.Lt. Governor 1982 (1) SCC 417 Satpal & ors. v. State of Haryana &ors.AIR 2000 SC 1702 Swaran Singh v. State of U.P. 1998 (4)SCC 75 Syed T.A. Haqshbandi v. State of J&K (2003) 9 SCC 592

Statutes Constitutiion of India Dutch Opium Act , 2002 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 Single Convention, 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961

Websites www.indiakanoon.com www.researchgate.net

5|Memorandum on behalf of Appellants

www.legalserviceindia.com www.lawctopus.com www.lawteacher.net

Articles: Politicsweb.co.za/politics/grace-mugabe-granted-diplomatic-immunity-dirco www.ediplomat.com/nd/diplomatic-immunity.htm m.timesofindia.com/india/Yakub-Memon-case-Can –mercy-plea-be-filed-beforeGovernor-afterpresident-rejects-it-SC –asks/articleshow/48180769.cms

6|Memorandum on behalf of Appellants

Statement of Jurisdiction The appellants have the honour to submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India the memorandum for the respondents in the Criminal appeal no. 263/07 and writ petition no. 432/07 and 169/07 under the criminal appellate jurisdiction and the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court respectively.

7|Memorandum on behalf of Appellants

Statement of facts State of affairs in Netherlands 1. Robert Smith is a citizen of Netherlands. He is a son of a well renowned political leader, John who had played important role in harmonizing the relations between Muslims and Christians, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attack, in the capacity of the mayor of Amsterdam. 2. Robert used to run a drug racket and he himself consumed soft drugs which were allowed by the Dutch drugs policy. In 2002, he was arrested by the Dutch police for committing an offence under Art.2A of the Dutch opium Act whereby he tried to smuggle 20kgs. Of Opium and 25 kgs. Of hashish into the Dutch territory. He was convicted and sentenced under Art. 10 of the said Act and was sentenced for two years of imprisonment, however due to John’s considerable influence, as well as the fact that it was Robert’s first offence under the Opium Act , the court was inclined toward him less sentence. 3. After completion of sentence Robert left Netherlands and went to Malaysia. Robert’s second conviction 4. In Malaysia Robert once again engaged in the narcotics business. On 12th December, 2005 he tried to smuggle 30 kgs . Of opium and 25 kgs of hashish from Malaysia to India. He was arrested by the Indian custom officials along with officials from the Narcotics Control Bureau. He was prosecuted under sec. 31A of the NDPS Act 1985. 5. Considering that it was a subsequent offence of import of drugs as he had already been convicted once under Dutch law, Robert was awarded death sentence under sec.31A of the NDPS Act on 30th August, 2006. Aggrieved by this decision he filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court on 10th September 2006 6. Meanwhile, Robert’s Father John was appointed as Netherland’s Ambassador to India on 15th September 2006. The Indian govt accepted the appointment of John as the head of the Mission .The Dutch embassy declared that the appointment of John would be treated retrospectively with effect from 15th November 2005 as no ambassador had been appointed since then. The said stipulation was also approved by the Indian govt. In pursuance of the ambassador power to appoint members of the mission, John appointed Robert Smith as a member of Dutch embassy on 30th September 2006 with retrospective effect from 5th November 2005. 7. In appellate proceedings before the Bombay high court, Robert Smith pleaded that he was a member of Netherlands mission with effect from 5th November 2005, hence due to diplomatic immunity he could not have been prosecuted in India. Moreover Netherlands had abolished the death penalty hence Robert contended that he could not have been prosecuted in India for a death penalty offence. On 3rd

8|Memorandum on behalf of Appellants

December 2006 the Bombay high court after considering all the contentions of Robert upheld the decision of the special tribunal and confirmed his sentence. Aggrieved by the Bombay High court’s decision Robert smith filed a SLP before the Supreme Court on 15th December 2006. Ram Singh Sabharwal’s case 8. Ram Singh Sabharwal is a retired IPS officer residing in Nasik. Sabharwal had recently lost his wife and two kids in a road accident as a result of his rash driving. Blaming himself for the death of his family, Sabharwal took to consumption of narcotic drugs to overcome his guilt. On 15th June 2006 when Sabharwal was returning home after consuming opium, he was arrested by NCB officials upon his requisition to be searched by a gazetted officer, 50 gms of opium was found from Sabharwal’s person and 1.5 kgs of opium was seized from his vehicle .Consequently Sabharwal was prosecuted under Sec. 8 read with sec. 18 and sec. 27 of NDPS Act. Sabharwal’s trial started on 15th July 2006. His bail application was rejected by the special tribunal and the sane was confirmed by the Bombay high court. However the Supreme Court granted bail to Sabharwal imposing certain conditions. During the course of the trial, Sabharwal admitted to consuming narcotic drugs and since Sabharwal’s possession of opium was proved beyond doubt, the special tribunal sentenced him for two years of rigorous imprisonment under sec. 18 of NDPS Act and two months under sec.27 of the NDPS Act. 9. On 19th October 2006 Sabharwal filed an appeal before the Bombay high court and also filed an application under sec. 389 Cr.P.C. under which he was granted relief also. But high court refused to interfere with the special tribunal’s decision on merits, keeping in mind the strict liability regime operating under the NDPS Act and the objective of the statute .On 15th December 2006 Sabharwal preferred a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The said SLP was dismissed at the preliminary stage itself on 2nd January 2007 and hence his sentence became final. Grant of Pardon 10. Robert was advised to file a mercy petition before the president of India. Therefore John filed a mercy petition before the President of India on 5th January 2007. Reading this news item Sabharwal also foiled a mercy petition before the president of India on 10th January 2007 seeking his kind indulgence. The President of India thus received two mercy petition one from John and the other from Sabharwal. He referred both the matters to the council of Ministers for their advice .On the basis of the advice of Council of ministers, the President granted Robert full pardon and the mercy petition of Sabharwal was rejected. Both the orders were declared on the 1 st June 2007. 11. At this stage Supreme court observed that the SLP filed by Robert which was still pending ,, had become infructuous after grant of full pardon by the president to him,

9|Memorandum on behalf of Appellants

nonetheless the case involve certain important questions of law. Therefore on 3rdJune 2007 the court declared the SLP filed by Robert as admitted and to be posted for hearing on merits [Appeal(Criminal)No. 263/07] 12. In the interim Sabharwal filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India on 10th June 2007 [Writ Petition No. 169/07] in which he contended that the president did not exercised the constitutional powers granted to him properly. The court clubbed this writ with the above matter and directed a rule nisi to be issued to the Union of India and Robert Smith 13. Meanwhile the ABC party, which Sabharwal had supported during his stint as an IPS officer, came to power in Maharashtra assembly elections. Sabharwal approached the party chief through a friend of his, who was a political; leader. On assurance from the political leader, Sabharwal applied for clemency to the governor on 10th July 2007, in spite of his mercy petition being rejected by the President and his writ pending in the Supreme Court. This time his petition was successful and the governor granted him full pardon. 14. The opponents of Sabharwal influenced the XYZ party, the political opponents of ABC party, to challenge this decision by a writ in Supreme Court on 20th July 2007 [Writ Petition No. 432/07]. The Supreme Court issued a similar rule nisi to the state govt. And this petition was clubbed with the previous matters for hearing.

10 | M e m o r a n d u m o n b e h a l f o f A p p e l l a n t s

Issues for Consideration Issue No. 1 [1] Whether or not this honorable court has the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition No. 169/07, No. 432/07 and to take up the criminal appeal no 263/07?

Issue No. 2 [2] Whether or not Robert Smith can be granted the diplomatic immunities as envisaged under Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961?

Issue No. 3 [3] Whether or not President's power to pardon is subject to judicial review?

Issue No. 4 [4] Whether or not Governor acted in accordance with constitutional mandate?

11 | M e m o r a n d u m o n b e h a l f o f A p p e l l a n t s

Arguments Advanced

1] Whether or not this honourable court has the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition No. 169/07, No. 432/07 and to take up the criminal appeal no 263/07? It is submitted that this honourable court has not the appropriate jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition no 169/07 and to take up the criminal appeal no 263/07. And the writ petition No. 169/07 challenges the president’s power to pardon conferred on it by Art.72 of the constitution of India. It contends that president did not exercise the constitutional powers granted to him properly as it is well settled fact that president’s power to pardon is a discretionary power; it is a grant of mercy. President has been conferred this power so as to correct possible judicial errors, for no system of judicial administration can be free from imperfections .It is founded on the consideration of public good and it is to be exercised on the ground of public welfare, which is the legitimate object of all punishments and will be as well promoted by a suspension as by execution of sentences. Being an executive power the pardoning power of president is independent of judiciary, the object of conferring this power on the president is two fold: a) To keep the door open for correcting any judicial errors in the operation of law; and b) To afford relief from a sentence which the president regards as unduly harsh. This honourable court itself in Kuljeet Singh v. Lt. Governor itself observed that the term pardon itself signifies that it is entirely a discretionary remedy and grant or rejection of it need not to be reasoned . Again in Kehar Singh v. Union of India; it has been reiterated by this honourable court that the grant of pardon by the president is an act of grace and therefore can’t be claimed as a matter of right. So far as the writ petition No. 432/07 is concerned it is submitted that in view of the above citied authorities this writ petition is also not maintainable as it challenges the Governors discretionary power to pardon conferred upon him by the Art.161 of the constitution of India. As regards the criminal petition No. 263/07; it is submitted that as Robert smith has been granted pardon by the president of India, the present SLP has now become infractuous.

12 | M e m o r a n d u m o n b e h a l f o f A p p e l l a n t s

Hence in the lieu of precious time of this honourable court, this petition should not be taken up again as justice has been delivered to Robert smith by the highest executive authority of the country. Therefore it is most respectfully submitted that these petitions are not maintainable and hence should not be taken up by the court for hearing.

13 | M e m o r a n d u m o n b e h a l f o f A p p e l l a n t s

[2] Whether or not Robert Smith can be granted the diplomatic immunities as envisaged under Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961? Diplomatic immunity is a principle of international law by which certain foreign government officials are not subject to the jurisdiction of local courts and other authorities. It protects the channels of diplomatic communication by exempting diplomats from local jurisdiction so that they can perform their duties with freedom, independence and security. The convention of diplomatic immunity-intended to prevent embassy staff being harassed when operating in hostile countries- is a long-standing cornerstone of international relations that dates back centuries prior to being enshrined in the Vienna Convention. The immunity granted to diplomats is grounded in the requirement which under international law is to respect the territorial integrity and political independence of other states. The Vienna convention which came into force on 24 April 1964 with 191 contracting parties till now provides a framework for the establishment, maintenance and termination of diplomatic relations on the basis of consent between independent sovereign states. It sets out the special rules, privileges and immunities which enable diplomatic missions to act without fear of coercion or harassment through the enforcement of domestic laws and communicate securely with their sending state. Inviolability of diplomatic agents is regarded as a fundamental principle and the freedom of a diplomat in a receiving state to perform his duties without hindrance from law suits or criminal prosecution, has traditionally been considered an absolute necessity. [2.1]Whether the diplomats can be appointed with retrospective effect? The sole guiding authority in the matters of diplomatic relations is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. All the affairs concerning appointment, removal, termination etc. regarding the diplomats are subject to mutual consent between the two States and are dependent on the rules framed and conventions followed between two countries. The Preamble to the Vienna Convention also affirms that the rules of customary international law should continue to govern questions not expressly regulated by the provisions of the present Convention. Art.2 of the convention states: “The establishment of diplomatic relations between States and of permanent diplomatic missions takes place by mutual consent.” Here John was appointed as Netherlands’ Ambassador to India on 15 th September 2006. The Dutch embassy in India declared that the appointment of John would be treated retrospectively with effect from 5th November, 2005 as no Ambassador had been appointed since then. The said stipulation was also accepted by the Indian Govt. And in pursuance of the Ambassador’s power to appoint members of the mission, John

14 | M e m o r a n d u m o n b e h a l f o f A p p e l l a n t s

appointed Robert Smith as a member of the Dutch Embassy on 30 th September, 2006 with retrospective effect from 5th November, 2005. Now the question arises were these appointments effective? It is submitted that the answer to this question comes in affirmative. As has been seen in the Art.2 of the convention all the establishments of diplomatic relations take place by mutual consent, it is clear that these appointments are valid. This is evident from the fact that the stipulation of giving retrospective effect to the appointment of John was given acceptance by the Indian Govt. And govt. gives acceptance to a certain type of conduct; it sets an example for others to follow the same line of course. Hence Robert’s appointment with retrospective effect from 5 th September, 2005 cannot be challenged. [2.2] Whether Vienna Convention, 1961 is applicable on Robert? Art. 31 of the Vienna Conventions states: ‘A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.” This gives the diplomats complete immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. Since all diplomats are entitled to this immunity, Robert should also be entitled to this immunity. There have been many instances that reflect how diplomats can set themselves free from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state. One of such recent incidents was the stealing of the mobile phones of the participants of the North American Leadership Summit by the Mexican diplomat. When he was enquired he got himself free by waiving the card of his diplomatic immunity. There are numerous examples of this kind where diplomats are set free even when they have committed gross crimes like human trafficking, murder etc. Thus it is submitted that Robert Smith is subject to the provisions of the Vienna convention, 1961 and he should be entitled to all the immunities. [2.3] Whether diplomatic immunity can be given from retrospective effect? This question involves the analysis of the facts of the case which are as follows: Robert was appointed as a member of the Netherland’s mission to India with retrospective effect from 5th September 2005. The govt. also did not object to it. On the day of his appointment the appeal filed by him was pending in the Bombay High Court.

15 | M e m o r a n d u m o n b e h a l f o f A p p e l l a n t s

It is submitted that Robert be granted immunities from the date of his appointment i.e. from 5th September 2005. The rationale for this submission is that Indian govt. being aware of the facts that he has been convicted for importing drugs into India under NDPS Act, 1985 did not objected to his appointment. There were a no. of approaches which could have been made even after the appointment which include: Art. 9: The receiving state may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending state that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or any other member of the staff is not acceptable. Art.32: The immunity from jurisdiction of diplomatic agents and of persons enjoying immunity under art. 37 may be waived by the sending states. Since any of the two courses have not been followed; it indicates that both have states do not have any objection in granting him diplomat status and immunities emerging from it retrospectively. A recent incident corroborates the submission which is the matter of Grace Mugabe, the then first lady of Zimbabwe in which she had got immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of South Africa retrospectively. Therefore it is requested that Robert Smith be entitled to the immunity from criminal jurisdiction under Vienna Convention.

16 | M e m o r a n d u m o n b e h a l f o f A p p e l l a n t s

[3] Whether or not President's power to pardon is subject to judicial review? The power to pardon is a constitutional scheme which has been reposed by the people in the head of the state who enjoys high status and such power rests on the advice tendered by the executive to president. The pardoning power is an indispensable element of even the most perfect system of laws . Pardon is an act of grace from the governing power that mitigates the punishment demanded by the law for the offence and restores the rights and privileges lost on the account of the offence. It is also an act of justice, supported by public policy. [3.1] Object of pardoning power The object of pardoning power is to correct possible judicial errors, for no system of judicial administration can be free from imperfections .It is an attribute of sovereignty wherever the sovereignty may release a convict from a sentence which is mistaken, harsh or disproportionate to the crime. To cure such situation this power has been granted to an independent organ of government free from any sort of restraints. The pardoning power is founded on consideration of public good and is to be exercised on the ground of public welfare, if requires suspension or execution of the sentences. The rationale for this power to pardon is clearly illustrated by the reasoning given by PATHAK, CJ., in Kehar Singh v. Union of India: To any civilized society, there can be no attributes more important than the life and personal liberty of its members. In most civilized societies, the deprivation of personal liberty and threat of the deprivation of life by the action of the state is regarded seriously and therefore recourse is provided to the judicial organ for its protection. But there always remains the possibility of the fallibility of human judgment even in the most trained mind and it has been considered appropriate that in the matter of life and personal liberty, the protection should be extended by entrusting power further to some high authority to scrutinize the validity of the threatened denial of life or the threatened or continued denial of personal liberty. The power so entrusted is a power belonging to the people and reposed in the highest dignitary of the State. H.M. Seervai has aptly written: “Judges must enforce the laws, whatever they be, and decide according to the best of their Lights; but the laws are not always just and the lights are not always luminous. Nor, again are Judicial methods always adequate to secure Justice. The Power of pardon exists to prevent injustice whether from harsh, unjust laws or from judgments

17 | M e m o r a n d u m o n b e h a l f o f A p p e l l a n t s

which result in injustice; hence the necessity of vesting that power in an authority other than the judiciary has always been recognized.” The classic systematic interpretation or explanation of the law relating to pardon is to be found in Ex parte Philip Grossman where Chief Justice Taft mentioned “Executive clemency exists to afford relief from undue harshness or evident mistake in the operation or the enforcement of the criminal law. The administration of justice by the courts is not necessarily always wise or certainly considerate of circumstances which may properly mitigate guilt. To afford a remedy, it has always been thought essential in popular governments, as well as in monarchies, to vest in some other authority than the courts power to ameliorate or avoid particular criminal judgments.” [3.2] Whether this power be subjected to judicial review? After observing the sanctity of the pardoning power of the constitutional authorities the key question remains that should this pious road to high stand of justice be subjected to judicial review? In Burdwick v. United States, the power to pardon was described beautifully: “A Pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed” In Syed T.A. Haqshbandi v State of J&K, the Supreme Court observed that: “Judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching the decision has been observed correctly and not the decision itself, as such. Critical or independent analysis or appraisal of the materials by the court exercising powers of judicial review unlike the case of an appellate court would neither be permissible nor conducive to the interests of either the officer concerned or the system and institutions. Grievances must be sufficiently substantiated to have firm or concrete basis on properly established facts and further proved to be well justified in law, for being countenanced by the court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. Unless the exercise of power is shown to violate any other provision of the Constitution of India or any of the statutory rules, the same cannot be challenged by making it a justifiable issue before the court” Thus in the instant case, the President has followed the exact course of procedure what has to be followed in accordance with constitutional mandate and constitutional conventions; the order has been declared on the basis of the advice rendered to him by the council of ministers.

18 | M e m o r a n d u m o n b e h a l f o f A p p e l l a n t s

Moreover there are many factors besides the legal issues, on which President considers the mercy petitions .In the present case, those factors include multifarious objectives which are to be achieved by the country i.e. international peace and harmony. And to ensure that maintenance of friendly and harmonious relations with Netherlands is necessary. Granting pardon to Robert was also considered important so as to ensure the safety and convenience of Indian diplomats in the Indian Embassy in Dutch as these relations depend upon the principle of reciprocity, inter alia. Further it is submitted that exercise of executive clemency is a matter of discretion .It is not a matter of privilege. It is a matter of performance of official duty. Hence it can't be demanded as a matter of right. It has been contemplated by this court in Kehar Singh v. Union of India: “It is a constitutional responsibility of great significance, to be exercised when occasion arises in accordance with the discretion contemplated by the context.” And in discharging that responsibility, the President can go into the merits of the case notwithstanding the fact that it has been judicially concluded by the court. The President can examine the record of evidence of the criminal case and determine for himself whether the case is one deserving the grant of relief falling within that power. The nature and ambit of the pardoning power of the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution was again clearly described in Kuljeet Singh v. Lt. Governor. In this case, death sentence of one of the appellants was confirmed by the apex Court. His mercy petition was also rejected by the President. Then, the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the discretion of the President to grant pardon on the ground that no reasons were given for rejection of his mercy petition. The court dismissed the petition and observed that the term “pardon” itself signifies that it is entirely a discretionary remedy and grant or rejection of it need not to be reasoned. This Court once again in Kehar Singh v Union of India reiterated its earlier stand and held that the grant of pardon by the President is an act of grace and, therefore, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The power exercisable by the President being exclusively of administrative nature is not justiciable. Thus it is submitted that the grant of full pardon to Robert Smith and rejection of petition of Ram Singh Sabharwal were two distinguishable issues based on different circumstances and hence involves no need for judicial intervention.

19 | M e m o r a n d u m o n b e h a l f o f A p p e l l a n t s

[4] Whether or not Governor acted in accordance with constitutional mandate? It is submitted that the Governor of Maharashtra who entertained the mercy petition of Ram Singh Sabharwal and also granted him full pardon acted neither in accordance with constitutional mandate nor on reasonable grounds. [4.1] Can Governor exercise his power to pardon under Art.161 after rejection of the petition by the President? The Governor of Maharashtra granted full pardon to Ram Singh Sabharwal after the rejection of his mercy petition by President and during the pendency of the writ petition filed by him. Ram Singh Sabharwal’s mercy petition was rejected by the President on 1stof June, 2007. After which he filed a writ petition for the arbitrary exercise by the President of the powers conferred on him by the constitution. During the pendency of the petition, the ABC Party which Sabharwal had supported during his stint as an I.P.S. officer came to power in the Maharashtra assembly elections .On assurance from the political leader of the ABC Party, Sabharwal applied for clemency to the Governor on 10 thJuly, 2007. And he also got full pardon from the Governor. Now the question which arises is that can Governor grant pardon to a convict whose mercy petition has already been rejected by the President. The theoretical approach to this problem goes this way: It is the basic settled law that once a higher authority denies some right or relief, whatever the case may be, the lower authority can’t at any cost provide that relief. If the otherwise was made possible then that would disturb the balance and make the subordinate authority as one having concurrent powers. Thus it is submitted that governor should not have accepted the application for clemency made by Ram Singh Sabharwal. A recent incident also supports this submission: during the hearing of the review petition of the Yakub Memon in 2015, the court asked the counsel isn’t it an awkward situation where after the rejection of the mercy petition, an application for clemency is being made to the Governor. However the Governor rejected that application for clemency. [4.2] Did Governor act on fair and reasonable grounds? It evident from the facts that Ram Singh Sabharwal applied for clemency to the Governor only after assurance from political leader of ABC party .That makes it suspicious whether the Governor acted fairly and freely. Further as is the convention,

20 | M e m o r a n d u m o n b e h a l f o f A p p e l l a n t s

the Governor has to act on the advice of the council of ministers, and if such convention has been followed then definitely the Governor’s decision is not free and fair. The exercise of power of pardoning by Governors has never been free from controversies, so here noting a few in the interest of justice would be beneficial. In Swaran Singh v State of U.P., the Governor of U.P. had granted remission of life sentence awarded to the Minister of the State Legislature of Assembly convicted for the offence of murder. The Supreme Court interdicted the Governor’s order and said that it is true that it has no power to touch the order passed by the Governor under Article 161, but if such power has been exercised arbitrarily, mala fide or in absolute disregard of the “finer cannons of constitutionalism”, such order cannot get approval of law and in such cases, “the judicial hand must be stretched to it.” The Court held the order of Governor arbitrary and, hence, needed to be interdicted. Again in Satpal & Anr. V. State of Haryana & Ors. this court held that the power of granting pardon under Article 161 was very wide and did not contain any limitation as to the time and occasion on which and the circumstances under which it was to be exercised. Since the power is a constitutional power, it is amenable to judicial review on the following grounds: 1. If the governor had been found to have exercised the power himself without being advised by the govt., 2. If the governor transgressed his jurisdiction in exercising the said power, 3. If the governor had passed the order without applying his mind, 4. The order of the governor was mala fide, 5. The order of the governor was passed on some extraneous considerations. Hence it is very clear that matter in the instant case comes under the fifth category and thus subject to judicial review. Therefore it is requested that the said order of Governor granting full pardon to Ram Singh Sabharwal be declared invalid and unconstitutional.

21 | M e m o r a n d u m o n b e h a l f o f A p p e l l a n t s

Prayer for Relief In the light of the arguments advanced, cases cited and the corresponding authorities, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Supreme Court may graciously be pleased to adjudge that: 1. The SLP taken up for consideration by Supreme Court, after grant of full pardon by president, should be dropped. 2. The orders of President granting relief to Robert are lawfully valid. 3. The grant of clemency by Governor to Ram Singh Sabharwal should be declared in valid. 4. Any other direction/relief which the Hon’ble court may deem fit.