Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

More than two centuries ago, Lord Mansfield, in R. v. Wilkes (1770) 4 Burr 2527 said.

The constitution does not allow reasons of State to influence our judgments: God forbid it should! We must not regard political consequences; how formidable soever they might be: if rebellion was the certain consequence, we are bound to say 'fiat justitia, mat caelum' (Let justice be done though the heavens fall). The constitution trusts the King with reasons of State and policy: he may stop prosecutions: he may pardon offences; it is his, to judge whether the law or the criminal should yield. We have no election. None of us encouraged or approved the commission of either of the crimes of which the defendant is convicted; none of us had any hand in his being prosecuted. As to myself, I took no part, (in another place) in the addresses for that prosecution. We did not advise or assist the defendant to fly from justice: it was his own act; and he must take the consequences. None of us have been consulted or had anything to do with the present prosecution. It is not in our power to stop it; it was not in our power to bring it on. We cannot pardon. We are to say, what we take the law to be: if we do not speak our real opinions, we prevaricate with God and our own consciences.