In B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331 , the court categorically held that unlike England, all powers that have been conferred upon the President and the Governor by the Constitution are not a matter of prerogative but a constitutional responsibility and its exercise, a matter of performance of an official duty of the highest sanctity, and thus, unquestionably amenable to judicial review. It observed that the sufficiency of the attending facts and circumstances necessitating the exercise of such powers is to be decided by the President or the Governor. However, the question of whether such exercise is predicated upon all relevant cogent materials and falls within the limitations of the constitutional scheme and is not a result of an arbitrary or malafide exercise, would be subject to the judicial review of the courts.
Placing reliance on Maru Ram v Union of India (1981), it held that the exercise of such powers by the President only carries with it a notional presumption of a careful and proper exercise based on objective considerations, but, by no stretch of imagination can it be construed to confer an immunity from judicial review. It further explained, in the context of Article 72 of the Constitution, the standard of judicial review that the courts are expected to apply when scrutinizing the exercise of such power by the President.
It held that where reasons have been given for the exercise of such power, there the courts may interfere only if the reasons are based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations. However, where no reasons have been given, there the courts may interfere only if the exercise is vitiated by a flawed understanding of the ambit of such power by misjudgment or is otherwise arbitrary, discriminatory or malafide. The relevant observations read as under: –
“76. This Court has examined in several cases, the scope of judicial review with reference to another prerogative power—power of the President/Governor to grant pardon, etc. and to suspend, remit or commute sentences. The view of this Court is that the power to pardon is a part of the constitutional scheme, and not an act of grace as in England. It is a constitutional responsibility to exercised in accordance with the discretion contemplated by the context. It is not a matter of privilege but a matter of performance of official duty. All public power including constitutional power, shall never be exercisable arbitrarily or mala fide.
While the President or the Governor may be the sole judge of the sufficiency of facts and the propriety of granting pardons and reprieves, the power being an enumerated power in the Constitution, its limitations must be found in the Constitution itself. The Courts exercise a limited power of judicial review to ensure that the President considers all relevant materials before coming to his decision. As the exercise of such power is of the widest amplitude, whenever such power is exercised, it is presumed that the President acted properly and carefully after an objective consideration of all aspects of the matter. Where reasons are given, the Court may interfere if the reasons are found to be irrelevant.
However, when reasons are not given, the Court may interfere only where the exercise of power is vitiated by self-denial on wrong appreciation of the full amplitude of the power under Article 72 or where the decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide (vide Maru Ram v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 107 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 112] , Kehar Singh v. Union of India [(1989) 1 SCC 204 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 86] , etc.).”
In Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly and Ors. reported in (2021) 16 SCC 503 the Court had held that a Speaker acting under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution would be duty bound to decide the disqualification petitions made before him within a reasonable time and that any failure in exercising this jurisdiction conferred upon him or reluctancy in acting in a time-bound manner would be a fit ground for the courts to engage in an exercise of judicial review of his actions, irrespective of the fact that it is the Speaker who has the prerogative to adjudicate such petitions.
It held that even where the jurisdiction of the courts to embark upon an examination on the merits of such prerogative powers has been ousted, the same does not curtail or inhibit the power of judicial review over the manner of exercise or non-exercise of such prerogative powers.
Similarly, in AG Perarivalan v. State, Through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT/MMDA, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and Anr. (2023) 8 SCC 257 the Court reiterated that any inexplicable or inexcusable non-exercise of a prerogative or sovereign power would be amenable to judicial review and that the manner of exercise of such powers by the Governor could not be said to be impervious to judicial scrutiny.