Deputy Chief Minister Francis D’Souza needs to be commended for his belief that we are living in an era of reformation, where criminals should not be punished and should instead be reformed. It is true that reformation of the criminal mind is a more progressive idea than mere incarceration behind bars in an atmosphere that does not promote change and improvement. But, the context in which he said this last week, was definitely questionable. He made this statement as he defended the decision of the Goa cabinet to pardon imprisoned Nuvem MLA Francisco (Mickky) Pacheco, who is currently serving a six-month prison term for having slapped a junior engineer of the Electricity Department in 2006. D’Souza is right when he says the Pacheco has already undergone imprisonment, but, till today it is two months of the six that he has to serve, which is not even half the term. One has to therefore assume that according to D’Souza, this is enough of punishment for Pacheco’s crime.
But, that is not the only argument that the government has given to defend its decision to pardon Pacheco. A day earlier, Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar had said that Nuvem constituency, that Pacheco represents, had every right to have their MLA in the Assembly, whose session is currently on. And so it was that the minister, while the Assembly was in session signed their names to the proposal to pardon their former cabinet colleague. That file, recommending Pacheco’s pardon, is now with Governor Mridula Sinha and so too are other petitions and letters from political parties and civil society requesting the Governor not to give her consent to the pardon.
The issue here is not just about reformation of a convicted prisoner or a constituency’s right to have its elected representative in the House, but about misuse of political power. By agreeing to pardon one of its own, the government has revealed by action that it is ready to overlook any misdemeanour or even crime by those close to it. Had Pacheco not been a MLA supporting the government, had he been sitting in the Opposition benches, the current cabinet surely would not have been so quick and willing to pardon his crime. He is their former colleague, a minister in this very government who resigned his ministerial post after his conviction and sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court.
The facts of the case are pretty clear and the conviction and the sentence have been upheld by the Supreme Court of India. Pacheco tried every possible legal way to get the conviction scratched, but even the highest court of the land felt that the act deserved the punishment. He was a minister at that point of time and yet he went into hiding. He resigned, no doubt, but for two months his whereabouts were not known before he suddenly surrendered and got himself arrested. Having now exhausted all the judicial reviews, he has gone in for the non-judicial process, which is the pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution.
Article 161 of the Constitution of India gives the Governor of a State rather wide powers to decide on pardon petitions. Under this Article the governor has the power to ‘grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remission of punishments or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence’, and it is under this Article that Pacheco has sought pardon. Legally therefore, if the governor grants him pardon or remits or suspends the sentence, she would not be wrong. But there would be other aspects to this action that would set a precedent for the future. A question the Governor should ask of herself is whether she would willingly assent to a pardon petition by any other convict jailed for a crime of a similar nature.
The Governor has to act based upon the facts of the case and the fact that Pacheco is a politician and a former minister should not influence her decision. She should not act arbitrarily, the office she holds in the highest in this State and it should be seen as being above politics. Politics has influenced the cabinet in its decision, it should not influence the Governor’s office.
