 bill no 127 of  2016 the constitution (amendment) bill, 2016 by shri r dhruvanarayana, mp a billfurther to amend the constitution of indiabe  it enacted by parliament in the sixty-seventh year of the republic of india as follows:—1 (1) this act may be called the constitution (amendment) act, 2016short title and commencement5(2) it shall come into force on such date as the central government may, by notification in the official gazette, appointamendment of article 722 in article 72 of the constitution, in clause (1), after sub-clause (c), the following proviso shall be added, namely:—"provided that in cases of sentence of death, the person convicted shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the president"10amendment of article 1613 in article 161 of the constitution, the following proviso shall be added at the end, namely:—"provided that in cases of sentence of death, the person convicted shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the governor" statement  of  objects  and  reasonsarticles 72 and 161 of the constitution empower the president of india and the governors of states to grant pardons, reprieves, respite or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence mentioned in the said articles the president and the governors have been bestowed with absolute powers in this regard however, there is no constitutional provision for oral hearing of a convict before the president or the governor in cases of mercy petition seeking parndo, commutation, etc of death sentencein the famous case of kehar singh anr vs union of india, the petition to allow for kehar singh's representative to see the president in person in order to explain the case concerning him was rejected on the ground that it was not in accordance with "the well established practice in respect of consideration of mercy petitions" in response to a further letter written by the counsel for kehar singh, the secretary to the president wrote that the president is of the opinion that he cannot go into the merits of a case finally decided by the highest court of the land and that the petition for grant of pardon on behalf of kehar singh will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the constitution on 1st december, 1988, a writ petition was filed before the supreme court to consider whether the president, while exercising his power to grant pardon under article 72 of the constitution, could examine the merits of a case which had been finally heard and decided by the supreme court the supreme court in its judgement dated 16th december, 1988 under the then chief justice rs pathak, observed, "we are of the view that it is open to the president in the exericse of the power vested in him by article 72 of the constitution to scrutinise the evidence on the record of the criminal case and come to a different conclusion from that recorded by the court in regard to the guilt of, and sentence imposed on, the accused in doing so, the president does not amend or modify or supersede the judicial record the judicial record remains intact and undisturbed the president acts in a wholly different plane from that in which the court acted he acts under a constitutional power, the nature of which is entirely different from the judicial power and cannot be regarded as an extension of it and this is so, notwithstanding the practical effect of the presidential act is to remove the stigma of guilt from the accused or to remit the sentence imposed on him" the judgement also said that there is no right in the condemned person to insist on an oral hearing before the president and, "the president may consider sufficient the information furnished before him in the first instance or he may send for further material relevant to the issues which he considers pertinent, and he may, if he considers it will assist him in treating with the petition, give an oral hearing to the parties"the present bill seeks to amend the constitution keeping in view the judgement which states that the effect of the pardon granted by the president or the governor is to remove the stigma of guilt from the accused or to remit the sentence imposed on him an oral hearing provides the petitioner with the opportunity to present the case in the matter of his/her life and death since in most cases it is years before a mercy petition is considered for acceptence or rejection, the convicted would have already spent a lot of time in prison the person convicted of death sentence should be allowed to present a case for himself so that while considering his/her petition, the executive can take into consideration the evidence of reformation even capital punishment retentionists advocate the exhaustion of all possibilities of survival, as a greater principle of precaution, before executing a death sentence mercy powers of the executive serve the purpose of saving the nation from the guilt of miscarriage of justice though judicial review is incorporated to prevent the misuse of power granted to the executive, it may also serve as a barrier in implementation of constitutional principles mercy petition is a constitutional prerogative which must be exercised with a great deal of responsibility and the petitioner should be entitled to an oral hearing before the executivehence this billnew delhi;r dhruvanarayanaapril 11, 2016 annexure extracts from the constitution of india         72 (1) the president shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence—(a) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the union extends;power of president to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases(b) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the union extends;(c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death(2) nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the power conferred by law on any officer of the armed forces of the union to suspend, remit or commute a sentence passed by a court martial(3) nothing in sub-clause(1) shall affect the power to suspend, remit or commute a sentence of death exercisable by the governor of a state under any law for the time being in force    161 the governor of a state shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted or any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the state extends    power of governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or cummute sentences in certain cases———— a billfurther to amend the constitution of india————(shri r dhruvanarayana, mp)gmgipmrnd—211ls(s3)—03-05-2016