Francis Fernandes
It is true that under the Constitution the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of a State enjoy executive, legislative, financial and judicial powers. But the judicial powers enjoyed by the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister do not include pardoning a convict.
However, Article 161 of the Constitution states that the Governor shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remission of punishment, or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends. Article 161 should be used by the Governor rarely and wisely where the convict really necessitates such a pardon in case a convict has been wrongly punished or convicted or in case pardon is required on account of the deteriorating health of the convict.
The Goa cabinet does not have any powers to pardon a convict who has been convicted by the Judiciary. The Goa government is making a mockery of the judicial system.
It is incorrect on the part of the Constitutional Head of the State to forward Pacheco’s petition to the Chief Secretary. It could have been rejected or not entertained at all. The Governor, instead of referring Pacheco’s petition to the Chief Secretary, should have forwarded it to the Advocate General. The position of the AG is equivalent to that of a judge of the High Court, who would have guided the Governor in a judicious manner.
Should the Governor pardon Pacheco, she will be insulting the people knowing well that the government derives its power from the people. The supremacy of the Judiciary over the Legislature and the Executive as laid down in the Constitution of India will be invalid.
