HC questions policy lapse: Unchecked Presidential Pardon Power

Staff Reporter :

The High Court has issued a ruling questioning why a policy should not be established to regulate the President’s power to grant pardons, suspend, or reduce sentences under Article 49 of the Constitution.

In response to a public interest petition, a High Court bench comprising Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debashish Ray Chowdhury issued the ruling on Monday (3 March) following an initial hearing.

On 20 January, Supreme Court lawyer Israt Hasan filed the petition, seeking a directive for the formulation of such a policy.

She represented herself during the hearing, while Deputy Attorney General Mohammad Mohsin Kabir appeared on behalf of the state.
Article 49 of the Constitution states: “The President shall have the power to grant pardon, suspend, or reduce any sentence awarded by any court, tribunal, or other authority.”

The High Court’s ruling also questions why the inaction of the relevant authorities in formulating a policy for the exercise of this constitutional provision should not be declared illegal, unconstitutional, and contradictory to Articles 7, 27, and 31 of the Constitution.

The Cabinet Secretary, Law Secretary, Home Secretary, and Secretary to the President’s Office have been asked to respond.

The petition argues that, in the absence of a policy, the President’s power remains unrestricted, with no clear criteria or transparency regarding the grounds for granting pardons or reducing sentences.

It further highlights that political considerations often influence such decisions, leading to the abuse of power.

Petitioner Israt Hasan contended that the President’s power has been grossly misused over the years.

Under previous governments, many convicted murderers have been pardoned, a practice that has been widely criticised and has raised concerns about justice.

This has led to a sense of insecurity regarding the fairness of the judicial system, posing a threat to the rule of law.