Case Analysis by: Roshan Thakur
Date of Judgement: May 18, 2022
Bench: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice B.R. Gavaiand, Justice A.S. Bopanna
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2022 SCC Online SC 635
Bureaucracy prolongs the agony of the prisoner but Supreme Court becomes the bulwark of human rights and brings justice to the prisoner.
Introduction:
A.G Perarivalanwas finally set free with liberty after being incarcerated for more than three decades. The Honourable Supreme Court took the stand of justice in the face of frivolous bureaucracy and held that the governor has no discretionary power under Article 161 of the Constitution to forward the mercy petition to the President of India. The case sets forth another landmark precedent in the judiciary’s pursuit of bringing reforms to the prison system and rehabilitation to prisoners.
Facts:
The Appellant was accused of the assassination of Rajeev Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India, on 21.05.1991. He was convicted for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Arms Act, 1951, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Passport Act, 1967, the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (‘TADA’). He was sentenced to death by the TADA Court. However, after filing a writ petition in the High Court of Madras, which was further transferred to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.
This case is related to the remission of the Appellant after the Appellant filed a string of mercy petitions to both the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the President of India under articles 161 and 72 of the constitution, respectively. The mercy petition to the president was rejected on August 12, 2011, and the mercy petitions to the Governor were rejected twice. However, on 30.12.2015, the Appellant filed a petition under Article 161 of the Constitution for the remission of his sentence, and a resolution was passed by the Tamil Nadu Cabinet on 09.09.2018, recommending the release of the Appellant, which was sent to the Governor. After a little more than two years, the Governor forwarded the petition along with the recommendation by the Tamil Nadu Cabinet to the President of India.
Legal Issue Raised:
Whether Article 161 of the Constitution grants power to the Governor to send the petition to the President of India without deciding on the recommendation made by the State Cabinet on remission of the sentence of the Appellant?
Arguments:
Arguments presented by the Appellant
Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted to the Hon’ble Court that, under Article 161 of the Constitution, forwarding the petition to the President is beyond the jurisdiction of the Governor. It was his contention that the State Cabinet’s recommendation is obligatory on the Governor and that the Governor has no independent discretion in that matter.
Mr Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel, substantiated the argument by submitting that the scope of Articles 161 to 163 has been explained by more than one Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, according to which, the Governor is bound by the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers. Furthermore,he advanced his argument by stating that no provision in the Constitution enables the Governor to refer to the recommendation of the State Cabinet for the decision of the President of India.
Arguments advanced by the Respondent
Mr K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, argued that in the current case, it is the President of India that has the appropriate authority to decide the petition and the Governor was well within his jurisdiction to forward the petition. He relied on the case of Union of India v. Sriharan, where it was held that it is only the President of India who can take a decision on the remission/commutation of the sentence of the Appellant.[1]
The respondent proceeded further by submitting that there are exceptions for when the Governor can act on his own and these have been laid down in M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P., where the court held that there are circumstances such as where on facts of the case there is an apparent prejudice of the Council of Ministers and/or the decision of the Council of Ministers is shown to be based on non-consideration of relevant factors, the Governor can act in his discretion.[2]
The Judgement:
The Honourable Supreme Court gave its interpretation of the word ‘satisfaction’ and stated that the satisfaction of the Governor or President in the Constitution does not mean personal satisfaction’ in the literal sense but it is in the constitutional sense under the Cabinet system of Government. It is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers, on whose aid and advice the Governor or President has to act. The Hon’ble Court put reliance on the case of Maru Ram v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that the Governor is bound by the advice of the cabinet. The court also stated that the case of M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P.is inapplicable in this case because there are no ‘relevant factors’ that the cabinet ignored. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the Governor ought not to have sent the recommendation made by the State Cabinet to the President of India.
The Hon’ble Court held that the State Government is the appropriate government in the current case. Justice Lalit relied on the case of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Bombay where it was held,
“…in matters concerning offences under Section 302 IPC, it is the Governor under Article 161 of the State Government as appropriate Government under the CrPC who have been exercising appropriate powers.”[3]
In light of the above arguments and the conduct of the appellant throughout his time in prison, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set the appellant at liberty, given that he had spent more than 31 years already in jail.
Precedents in the Case:
· Union of India v. Sriharan [1]
· M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. [2]
· K.M. Nanavati v. State of Bombay [3]
· Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab [4]
· M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. [5]
· Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. [6]
Analysis:
This judgement has consolidated the position of the courts in India in the aspect of upliftment of prisoners and their rehabilitation, and the Honourable Supreme Courtprovidedimperativejustice to the appellant who waited for thirty-one years. The court has rightfully held that the Governor had no power to forward the petition to the President of India. The Court arrived at this conclusion by giving the reasoning that the Indian model of parliament is based on the British parliament and that the Governor, whilst occupying the position of the head of the executive in the State, doesn’t carry on the executive government in practicality. As mentioned in paragraph 5 of the judgement, it is virtually the Council of Ministers in each State that carries on the executive government. It would have been unsound and illogical to allow the Governor to do so at their discretion as it would violate the precedents set by the Hon’ble court which enunciated that in matters with respect to the exercise of the powers under Articles 72 and 161, the two highest dignitaries must act not on their own discernment but in compliance with the aid and advice of the ministers.[4]
The apex court gave its interpretation of the term "appropriate government” in this case. Hon’ble Justice Lalit said that the offence under Section 302 IPC is directly related to “public order” under Schedule VII List II Entry 1 of the Constitution and is in the exclusive domain of the State Government. He stated,
“Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the offence under Section 302 IPC is referable to Entry 1 of List III, in accordance with the principles as discussed hereinabove, it is the Executive Power of the State Government alone which must extend, in the absence of any specific provision in the Constitution or in the law made by Parliament. Consequently, the State Government is the appropriate Government in respect of the offence in question in the present matter.”
The court took cognizance of the facts of the case and the precedents while relying on the case of M.P. Special Police Establishment v. the State of M.P.but the court rightfully pointed out that the current case is different as there were no relevant factors that the cabinet of ministers did not consider.[5] The Cabinet of Ministers was very responsible and reasoned in its recommendation, as it can be seen that the appellant had served for more than 31 years and had spent most of his life behind bars. The apex court also took notice of this as this is one of the major points that can’t be overlooked while discussing this case.
After scrutinising the judgement, it would become apparent that the questions answered in this case were not only related to Article 161 of the Constitution and the interpretation of the term ‘appropriate authority but the judgement also considered the position of the prisoners in the Indian prison system and rightfully brought attention to their mental health. The notion of citizens regarding prisoners is that they deserve to live in prisons for as long as their sentence is, but this would be a gross violation of the prisoner’s right to life as it would strip the prisoner away from repentance and start again. The prison system should be focused on the welfare of the prisoners and their rehabilitation. The Court relies on its judgement in Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. where the court held,
“Given petitions under Article 161 pertain to the liberty of individuals, inexplicable delay, not on account of the prisoners is inexcusable as it contributes to adverse physical conditions and mental distress faced by a prisoner, especially when the State Cabinet has taken a decision to release the prisoner by granting him the benefit of remission/commutation of his sentence.”[6]
Therefore, the apex court has solidified its position in the welfare of the Indian society which the prisoners are very much a part of.
Conclusion:
This judgement has shown the brilliance of the Indian judiciary and its independence. It has stopped the excesses and abuse of power by the authorities. It has upheld the spirit of the constitution by rightly interpreting Article 161 and Article 72 of the Constitution, which directly deals with the welfare and rehabilitation of prisoners.
This case has also brought to light how ineffective the prison system has become, and how any attempts at rehabilitation of prisoners are met with a ridiculous amount of bureaucratic red tape. The same is aggravated when the authorities are concerned about a delay in taking a decision, which in the current case was over 2 years, and even then, it wasn’t aligned with the Constitution.
References:
1. (2016) 7 SCC 1
2. (2004) 8 SCC 788.
3. AIR 1961 SC 112
4. (1974) 2 SCC 831
5. (2004) 8 SCC 788
6. (2006) 8 SCC 161
[1] Union of India v. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1. [2] M.P. Special Police Establishment v. the State of M.P., (2004) 8 SCC 788. [3] K.M. Nanavati v. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 112. [4]Samsher Singh v. the State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831. [5]M.P. Special Police Establishment v. the State of M.P., (2004) 8 SCC 788. [6]Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P., (2006) 8 SCC 161.
Comments