Review Presidential Mercy Powers: Implications for Justice, Society, and Government Accountability

The grasp of the presidential mercy powers such as pardons, commutation of sentences or even reprieves, can be looked at to examine their ambit and function, and implications for the judicial system, societal values, and governmental discretion. Motives and patterns in execution mercy will be analysed from historical and current uses. It is one example of how these powers can be essential aids to justice but in so far as they can themselves give rise to some complications which directly enhance such challenges of fairness and consistency as it is to witness. The choice of mercy was used to determine its positive contribution, through the prevention of excessive punishment, and its harmful use when mercy contravenes judicial interpretation of sentencing, in which case it might cause people to perceive the exercise of discretion in favour of the state at the expense of the victim. It delivers how these mercy powers are, indeed, dynamic systems with public expectations of fair play, and some scrutiny of transparency and ethical implications of executive mercy. This increasingly important area of research is further highlighted by newer legislative mechanisms such as Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which has done away with the judicial review of presidential mercy decisions. The finding of this research is that without judicial supervision the whole of this complete freedom given to the executive to exercise mercy is allegedly bereft of any robust sandal between it and possible arbitrary employment and loss of confidence in the public in the justice system. For this reason, this paper contends that there must be discretion granted to mercy powers, but not without other necessary checks on judicial decisions, for mercy powers to serve as a necessary check on judicial decisions but the discretionary nature of those powers requires proper guidelines to ensure consistency and maintain public confidence. These insights serve as a foundation of conversation about how to build transparency and accountability of executive mercy that balances the humanitarian dimensions of mercy with the fundamental principle of justice.