MPSC 2026 Prelims Paper-I · Question 72 of 100

Correct — option (2) is the incorrect statement, and the stem prints 'incorrect' in bold precisely so that the negation is not missed. The President is NOT bound to give reasons for an order made under the pardoning power. This is one of the settled propositions the Supreme Court laid down when it examined Article 72, and it follows from the nature of the power itself: mercy is an act of grace standing outside the judicial process, exercised after the courts have finished, and a duty to give reasons would turn it into a further tier of adjudication reviewable on those reasons. The other three statements are all accurate statements of the law, which is what makes option (2) the odd one out. Option (1) states a real difference between Article 72 and Article 161: the President's pardoning power expressly extends to punishments and sentences inflicted by a court martial, and the Governor's does not — the President is also alone in being able to pardon a sentence of death. Option (3), printed with 'oral bearing' where 'oral hearing' is plainly meant, states another of the Supreme Court's propositions: a mercy petitioner has no right to be heard orally by the President. Option (4) states the constitutional convention that governs the power: like the President's other functions, it is exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers, so a mercy petition is in practice processed by the Union Home Ministry and decided on the Cabinet's advice. Three true statements and one false one; the false one is option (2).

• (1)The President can pardon sentences inflicted by Court Martial while the Governor cannot. — This statement is correct, so it cannot be the answer to a question asking for the incorrect one. Article 72 gives the President the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites and remissions, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences, in three classes of case: where the punishment or sentence is by a court martial; where the offence is against a law relating to a matter within the Union's executive power; and in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death. Article 161 gives the Governor a parallel power, but only for offences against laws relating to matters within the State's executive power. Court martial sentences and death sentences are the two heads on which the Governor's power falls short of the President's, and this statement names the first of them accurately.
• (3)The petitioner for mercy has no right to an oral bearing by the President. — Correct as a statement of law, and therefore not the answer. The Supreme Court has held that a petitioner for mercy has no right to an oral hearing before the President — the word printed in the paper is 'bearing', evidently a misprint for 'hearing'. The reasoning is of a piece with the rest of the doctrine on Article 72: the mercy power is not a judicial proceeding, so the safeguards that attach to a trial, including the right to be heard in person, do not follow it. The petition is considered on the record and on the advice tendered by the government. The same body of propositions holds that the President may examine the evidence afresh and reach a different view from the court's.
• (4)The Pardoning power is to be exercised by the President on the advice of the Union Cabinet. — Correct, and therefore not the answer. Although Article 72 is worded as a power of the President, it is not a personal discretion. Like the great bulk of the President's functions, it is exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister, and the Supreme Court has stated this expressly in the context of the pardoning power. In practice a mercy petition is examined by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which places its recommendation before the President, and the President acts upon it. This is the single most tested proposition in the whole topic — UPSC set a statement in 2025 asserting the opposite, that the President can exercise the power without the advice of the Central Government, and keyed it false.

Article 72 confers on the President the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites and remissions of punishment, and to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence. The five kinds of relief are distinct and are regularly asked apart. A PARDON removes both the conviction and the sentence and absolves the convict of all punishments and disqualifications. COMMUTATION substitutes one form of punishment with a lighter form — a death sentence for rigorous imprisonment, for instance. REMISSION reduces the period of the sentence without changing its character. RESPITE awards a lesser sentence in place of the one originally awarded because of some special fact, such as the physical disability of the convict or the pregnancy of a woman offender. REPRIEVE stays the execution of a sentence, particularly a death sentence, for a temporary period, so that the convict may seek pardon or commutation. The purpose of the whole power is twofold: to keep a door open where an evident mistake has been made that the appellate process cannot correct, and to allow relief where a sentence, though lawful, is unduly harsh.

The Supreme Court has settled a compact body of propositions about how this power works, and state papers test them almost verbatim. The petitioner has no right to an oral hearing. The President may examine the evidence afresh and take a view different from the court's. The power is exercised on the advice of the Union Cabinet. The President is not bound to give reasons for the order. Relief may be given both from a sentence regarded as unduly harsh and from an evident mistake. The Court has declined to lay down specific guidelines for the exercise of the power. The exercise of the power is not subject to judicial review except where the decision is arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or discriminatory — a narrow but real opening, which is what makes 'limited judicial review' the correct description rather than 'no judicial review'. And where a mercy petition has already been rejected, a stay cannot be obtained by filing another. Read as a set, these propositions place the power outside the judicial process without placing it outside the Constitution.

• Article 72 — the President's pardoning power extends to punishments or sentences by court martial, to offences against laws within the Union's executive power, and to all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.
• Article 161 — the Governor has a parallel power for offences against laws within the State's executive power, but cannot pardon a court martial sentence and cannot pardon a death sentence.
• The five forms of relief: pardon (removes conviction and sentence and all resulting disqualifications), commutation (substitutes a lighter form of punishment), remission (shortens the term without altering its character), respite (a lesser sentence on a special ground such as disability or pregnancy) and reprieve (a temporary stay of execution).
• Supreme Court propositions on the power: the petitioner has no right to an oral hearing; the President may re-examine the evidence and differ from the court; the power is exercised on the advice of the Union Cabinet; and the President is NOT bound to give reasons for the order.
• Judicial review of a mercy decision is limited but not excluded — it lies where the decision is arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or discriminatory. A second mercy petition cannot be used to obtain a stay after the first has been rejected.

• Missing the bolded 'incorrect' in the stem and marking a true statement. On a negative stem, verify each option as true or false before choosing, rather than stopping at the first one that sounds right.
• Believing the President must record reasons for a mercy decision. The Supreme Court's position is the opposite, and this is the most frequently set false statement on the topic.
• Concluding that a mercy decision is beyond judicial review altogether. Review is limited, not excluded — it lies where the decision is arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or discriminatory.

The pardoning power is one of the most heavily worked corners of the polity syllabus, and it is asked in four recurring shapes. The comparison question sets Article 72 against Article 161 and asks what the Governor cannot do. The definition question asks which term describes a particular relief — the substitution of a lighter punishment, the temporary stay of an execution, the shortening of a term. The doctrine question, which is this paper's shape, reproduces the Supreme Court's propositions as statements and asks which is or is not correct, with the advice of the Council of Ministers, the absence of a right to an oral hearing and the absence of any duty to give reasons as the recurring material. And the review question asks whether and to what extent a mercy decision can be challenged in court. Learn the eight judicial propositions as a list, and all four shapes become the same question.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which one of the following forms of clemency removes both the conviction and the sentence, and absolves the convict of all punishments and disqualifications flowing from them?

  • (a)Remission
  • (b)Reprieve
  • (c)Pardon
  • (d)Respite

  Answer(c) Pardon — it wipes out the conviction as well as the sentence, so the person is placed in the position of one never convicted. Remission only shortens the term without altering its character, reprieve is a temporary stay of execution to allow a mercy petition to be considered, and respite substitutes a lesser sentence on a special ground such as the convict's physical disability or a woman offender's pregnancy.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  With reference to the pardoning power under the Constitution of India, which of the following can the Governor of a State NOT do? (a) Pardon a sentence of death (b) Pardon a sentence inflicted by a court martial (c) Grant remission of a sentence for an offence against a State law

  • (a)Only (a)
  • (b)Only (b)
  • (c)Only (a) and (b)
  • (d)(a), (b) and (c)

  Answer(c) Only (a) and (b) — Article 161 gives the Governor the pardoning power for offences against laws within the State's executive power, so remission under a State law is well within it. But a death sentence and a court martial sentence lie outside the Governor's reach and belong to the President under Article 72. Those two heads are the whole of the difference between the two Articles.