Remission and Commutation of Sentences a Social Perspective

  • Lakshya Pandey
  • Show Author Details
  • Lakshya Pandey

    Student at University of Petroleum & Energy Studies, India

  • img Download Full Paper


Law always had substantive questions regarding morality and sociality and the correlation between the two. A logical legal system is one to crave for in every nation. But, our constitutional structure is one that keeps people and their representatives above everyone else. Opinions of the populace and media can sometimes affect our very legal system and even the laws which we are bound by. It isn’t necessarily true that justice always prevails. In India there are 59,87,477 pending cases in the High Courts across the country. This number clearly indicates that the courts are overburdened and the executive is sharing that weight along with the judiciary. The courts endeavor to pass decisions in light of justice, equity and good conscience. However, even the hands of justice are tied sometimes especially when things are out of their power. One such function/issue/topic/conundrum or part of the legal system that are not within the inherent powers of the judiciary are the ability to grant pardons, remissions and commutation of sentences. Such powers are vested in the hands of the State, essentially, the executive. They are more threatened to be misused because of corruption and malpractices by people of status. In this article we shall discuss the laws relating to pardons, remission and commutation of sentences in India along with various case studies and also discuss remissions with particular emphasis on sociality, morality and justice.




International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Volume 6, Issue 5, Page 1060 - 1067


Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (, which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.


Copyright © IJLMH 2021