Article 161

Article 161 mirrors the President's pardoning power under Article 72, but at the state level. It reflects the idea, inherited from British constitutional tradition, that the executive should have a safety valve to correct judicial errors, show mercy, or respond to changed circumstances—separate from the courts. It ensures that when a law falls within the state's own executive domain, the state's head (the Governor) — acting on the advice of the state Council of Ministers — can exercise this clemency power rather than leaving it solely to the central government.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Governor's power under Article 161, like the President's under Article 72, must be exercised on the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, not as a personal discretion of the Governor (Maru Ram v. Union of India, 1980; Dhananjoy Chatterjee, and later cases). Courts have also said this power, while wide, is not absolute — it is subject to judicial review if exercised arbitrarily, in bad faith, or without application of mind (Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P., 2006; State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh, 2007). The power applies only to offences against laws on matters within the state's executive competence, distinguishing it from the President's broader Article 72 power.

• Myth: The Governor can pardon anyone personally, using their own judgment.
  Fact: Courts have held the Governor must act on the advice of the State Council of Ministers, not personal discretion.
• Myth: This power can be used for any crime in the country.
  Fact: It only applies to offences against laws on subjects within the state's executive power, unlike the President's wider Article 72 power.
• Myth: Once granted, a pardon or remission can never be questioned.
  Fact: Courts have ruled that such orders can be judicially reviewed if made arbitrarily, in bad faith, or without proper reasoning.