The question asks about Article 72(2) of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the President's pardoning power, specifically concerning court-martial sentences. We need to identify which authority, other than the President, is explicitly mentioned in this article as having the power to suspend, remit, or commute such sentences.
D) Any officer of the Armed Forces of the Union as conferred by law — Article 72(2) explicitly states that the President's power regarding court-martial sentences does not affect the power conferred by law on any officer of the Armed Forces of the Union to suspend, remit, or commute such a sentence. This means that such officers retain their statutory powers in this regard.
The question asks about the nature of the President of India's pardoning power under Article 72 of the Constitution. This requires knowledge of the constitutional provisions regarding the President's powers and the role of the Council of Ministers.
C) On the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister — This is the correct option. The President of India, being a constitutional head, exercises almost all his/her powers, including the pardoning power, on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
The question asks to identify the landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review over the President's pardoning power under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution. We need to recall the significant judgments related to the President's powers and judicial review.
B) Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989) — In this landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the pardoning power by the President under Article 72 is subject to judicial review. The Court clarified that while it cannot delve into the merits of the President's decision, it can intervene if the decision is found to be arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, or based on extraneous considerations, or if there was no application of mind.
The question asks to identify the Supreme Court case where it was held that the President's pardoning power under Article 72 "cannot run riot" and must keep sensibly to a steady course. This requires knowledge of landmark judgments related to the President's pardoning power in India.
D) Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) — In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that the power of pardon under Articles 72 and 161 cannot be exercised arbitrarily and is subject to judicial review. The Court famously stated that the power "cannot run riot" and must be exercised on sound principles, not on whim or fancy. It emphasized that the President/Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
The question asks to identify the correct statement regarding the President's pardoning power in India. We need to analyze each option based on constitutional provisions and established legal principles concerning this power.
Correct Option: B) The pardoning power of the President is an executive power, independent of the judiciary. This statement accurately describes the nature of the President's pardoning power under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution. It is an executive prerogative exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers, distinct from the judicial process.
The question asks about the authority that held pardoning powers similar to the President's power before the Indian Constitution came into effect. This requires knowledge of the constitutional history of India, specifically the period under British rule.
Correct Option: B) The British Sovereign (Crown) was the ultimate authority that held powers similar to the President's pardoning power in the pre-Constitution era. The British Crown was the supreme legal and executive authority over British India, and the power to grant mercy or pardon ultimately vested in the monarch.