“Law Master’s Publication”
“The State Executive”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale 121
c.
If an Act of the State legislature containing the same provisions had been
invalid unless it had been reserved for the consideration of the President and
had received the assent of the President,
In. D.C. Wadhava v. the State of Bihar4.
Facts: The petitioner has challenged Bihar state's practice of promulgating and
re-promulgating ordinances on a large scale without enacting them into Acts of the
legislature and keeping them alive for an indefinite period of time.
The Supreme Court held that such practice is a subversion of the democratic
process, a colourable exercise of power, and amounts to fraud upon the
Constitution, and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
4. Power to grant pardon (Art. 161):-
Art. 161 confers on the Governor the power to grant pardon, reprieve,
respite, or remission of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence
of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to matters to which
the executive powers of the State extend.
Differences between the President’s power and the Governor’s power to grant
pardon: -
The Governor's power is similar to that of the President conferred
under Art. 72. But there is a difference between these two powers in the following
respect-
Firstly, the President’s power is wider than that of the Governor of the State
because the President has exclusive power to grant pardon in cases where the
sentence is even a death sentence. In contrast, the Governor cannot grant a pardon
in case of a death sentence.
Secondly, the President can pardon punishments for sentences inflicted by the
court martial, whereas the Governor has no such power.
A pardon is an act of grace; therefore, it cannot be demanded as a matter of
right.
In K. M. Nanavati
V
Facts- Petitioner Nanavati, an officer in Nevi, was convicted of murder and
sentenced to life imprisonment, and the Bombay High Court confirmed the same.
At the time of the decision of the High Court, the petitioner was in Naval custody
and made an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. On the same
day, the Governor suspended the sentence subject to the order that the accused
4 (1987) 1 SCC 378.
5 AIR 1961 SC 112.