We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
this article is violative of Ubi jus ibi remedium i.e where there is a right, there is a remedy. because technically even if a person committed a murder or even r*pe the president can set him free. Why our constitutional makers inserted this article?
Pardons like this exist for a reason - the justice system is meant to rehabilitative, a person who has been successfully rehabilitated serves no purpose wasting taxpayer money in jail, this provides necessary flexibility
This also adds to the system of checks and balances
Also since you mentioned ubi jus ubi remedium, take note that rights against crime are rights in rem not rights in personam, since the state and society are wronged parties, it makes states have exceptional powers of commuting, remitting, pardoning, etc.