Writ seeks accountability in presidential pardons

Staff Reporter :

A writ petition has been filed in the High Court challenging the President’s discretionary power to pardon convicted individuals in the absence of established guidelines.

Advocate Ishrat Hasan, a Supreme Court lawyer, submitted this public interest litigation to the relevant branch of the High Court on Monday.

The writ seeks a directive asking why the President’s power to pardon convicted individuals without a policy framework should not be declared unconstitutional.

It further calls for the formulation of specific guidelines to regulate the exercise of this power.

The petition cites Article 49 of the Constitution, which grants the President the authority to pardon. However, this power is discretionary and lacks guiding principles.

There are no policies outlining the criteria or basis for granting pardons, which the petition argues contravenes Articles 7, 27, 31, and 32 of the Constitution.

It also highlights instances where this power has allegedly been misused, referencing cases such as those of Joseph, the brother of a former army chief, and Aslam Fakir, who were pardoned despite being convicted criminals.

Advocate Ishrat Hasan observed that over the years, there have been significant instances of abuse of the President’s pardon power.

During the tenure of previous governments, this authority was reportedly misused to pardon convicted murderers.

Such actions, the petition argues, raise public concerns about the fairness of the justice system and erode confidence in the ability to secure justice.

To prevent further misuse, it is essential to establish clear guidelines governing the exercise of this power.
The writ names the Cabinet Secretary, Law Secretary, Home Secretary, Parliament Secretary, and the Secretary of the President’s Office as respondents in the case.