Maru Ram & Ors V. Union of India & Anr AIR 1980 SC

Author: Mahaswetaa R, Student, Chettinad School of Law Kelambakkam

Edited by: Priyanshu Tyagi, Student, Mewar Law Institue Vasundhra

ABSTRACT :

The petitioner in this case questioned the constitutional validity of Section 433A of the criminal procedure code. The pardoning powers of the president and government provided under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India was also discussed in this case. The power of remittance and commutation is given to the president and governor, which shall be taken after taking advice from the council of ministers, while restriction is imposed on certain class of prisoners, for them to serve in the prison for minimum 14 years. But section 433A is constitutionally valid, and it does not violate article 14 or article 20(1). Also, it does not affect the pardoning powers of the president and governor, which is seen as a separate provision which is distinguished from the statutory powers of section 432 & 433.

Keywords: pardoning powers, prospective, prisoners, constitutional validity, remittance, president & governor.

CASE DETAILS:

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT:

• Section 433A of the criminal procedure code provides that, if any person is sentenced to imprisonment for life in which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death is changed into imprisonment for life, such person should serve in jail for at least fourteen years, and he can be remitted only after 14 years. This case also talks about the pardoning power of the president and governor provided under articles 72 and 161 of the Indian constitution. It says about remission and commutation of sentences where the order of the government is necessary. And it also highlights the main objects of punishment.
• Here, the main concern of the case is whether section 433A is affecting the pardoning powers of the president that are provided under sections 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution.
• The Background of the Judgement of the Supreme Court can be understood by these 4 points:
• Constitutionality of Section 433A
• Relationship with Short-Sentencing Laws and Remission Rules
• Effect on Articles 72 and 161’s Pardoning Powers
• Application of Section 433A Prospectively

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• A group of prisoners serving life sentences filed the lawsuit, arguing that Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is unconstitutional.
• With effect from December 18, 1978, Section 433A imposed a minimum of 14 years of real detention for two categories of life-sentence offenders:
• Individuals found guilty of a crime for which the death penalty is one of the available penalties.
• Those found guilty under any other statute where the death penalty is the worst. Before 433A, life imprisonment was understood to indicate imprisonment for the balance of the offender’s natural life, subject to certain remission clauses found in prison legislation and regulations.

 LEGAL ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether Section 433A is constitutionally valid?
2. Whether the pardoning powers of the president and governor affected by section 433A?
3. Whether parliament have no legislative competency to enact the impugned provision?
4. Whether this provision apply prospectively?
5. Whether section 433A violate Article 20(1) and Article 14 of the Indian constitution?

PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS:

The main argument here is that Section 433A of the criminal procedure code is against the constitution of India.

• While Section 432 and Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure give the power of remittance and commuting sentences, section 433A places restrictions on a certain class of prisoners. This confinement is not fair and just where the hopes of the prisoners are lost, and they are unable to reform themselves because of this restriction. This provision is against the pardoning powers of the president provided under articles 72 and 161 of the Indian constitution. It is stated that it is a harsh behavior of the law and provisions to not consider the prisoner’s feelings and helplessness.
• The petitioners are arguing that the reformation must be the main essential of punishment and it must be given priority among the other objects of punishment i.e., prevention, retribution and deterrence where these objects deserve secondary importance.
• The interpretation of statutes must be plain where the provisions are easily understood and interpreted without any complications.
• It is also said that section 433A is against Article 14 of the Indian constitution on 2 grounds. It treats unequal situations equally, where the circumstances and variation of crime are not taken into consideration. On the other hand, it says that section 433A is inhumane and anti-reformative in nature.
• Therefore, section 433A provides constraints that lead to the dissatisfaction of the prisoners which puts them in a difficult position and the interpretation of statutes must be clear and plain which provides a more straightforward approach instead of being chaos in understanding those interpretations.

RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS:

• The main argument is that section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code is constitutionally valid where it is not affected by the constitution of India.
• While section 433A poses restrictions on certain classes of prisoners, it does not violate the pardoning powers of the Constitution. the pardoning powers are not entirely enjoyed by the president and governor, the advice of the central and state government is taken, and their decision is binding on the head of the state. Also, the reduction in sentence does not arise unless the president or governor chooses to use those powers which is also according to the fair principle. Remission only affects the execution of the sentence, and it does not wipe out the offence.
• The four main objects of punishment must be balanced to provide a fair criminal justice system. All four objects must be given equal importance. Just focusing on one objective (reformation) will cause chaos to other objects. For example, if we focus on reformative alone, preventive theory cannot be established, which is providing protection to the public where the offender might cause problems.
• They argued that by prohibiting the early release of inmates found guilty of major crimes, Section 433A was passed to serve the justifiable purposes of maintaining public order and security.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Code of criminal procedure:

• Section 432:

“Power to suspend or remit sentences. —(1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.

• Section 433:

Power to commute sentence.—The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute—

(a) a sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
(b) a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for a fine.

(c) a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced, or for a fine.

(d) a sentence of simple imprisonment, for a fine.

• Section 433A:

Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.”

Constitution of India:

• Article 72:

(1) “The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence—

(a) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial;

(b) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;

(c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.

• Article 161:

The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.”

JUDGEMENT:

1. Ratio decidendi:

• The court upheld the constitutional validity of section 433A of the criminal procedure code.
• Dismissed the writ petition but partly allowed the case.
• Section 433A does not violate the pardoning powers which are provided under Articles 72 and 161. This provision is constitutionally valid. Section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code is a separate provision given as a restriction for section 432 and section 433 and it acts separately from the power of pardoning given under Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution.
• The pardoning powers such as remission, reprieves etc are granted to the president and governor under Article 72 and Article 161 of the Indian Constitution are limited. They must act on advice provided by the council of ministers. The central and state government’s decision is binding on the head of the state.
• Section 433A of Criminal Procedure Code do not violate Article 20(1) and Article 14 of Indian Constitution.
• Section 433A of the criminal procedure code is prospective. It won’t apply to cases decided before December 18, 1978.

2. Obiter Dicta:

• The court quoted a difference between the statutory powers of sections 432 & 433 of the criminal procedure code and the pardoning power provided under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India.
• Life imprisonment should be served by the offender till his last breath, and it can be remitted only by the order of government.
• The pardoning powers of the president and governor under Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution are with the central or state government and the court will intervene only in the rare case of irrationality, unfairness or irrelevance.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS:

• The restriction imposed on certain classes of prisoners through section 433A of the criminal procedure code does not seem to be right. This provision is constitutionally valid but not in all circumstances. Decisions of remittance and reduction in time period of life imprisonment must be taken after considering the situation of the prisoner. The time period of 14 years is huge.
• The pardoning power of the president & governor and statutory power of section 432 and 433 should be read separately. And the pardoning powers are not just with the head of the state, but it is with the respective government.
• In the recent Supreme Court case, it has been held that the governor cannot say no to the state’s recommendation, and it can also pass a pardon for prisoners even if they have not served a minimum of 14 years of time in jail.
• I would like to say that this can be done in special circumstances after considering all the facts and situation of the prisoner.

REFERENCES:

1. Important Cases Referred

·         Sambha Ji Krishan Ji vs State Of Maharashtra  AIR 1976

·         State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ratan Singh & Ors  AIR 1973 SC

·         Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India  AIR 1968 SC

·         E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr AIR 1982 SC

·         V. Punnen Thomas vs State Of Kerala  AIR 1968 SC

·         Bachan Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors  AIR 1980 SC

1. b. Important Statutes Referred

• Constitution Of India, 1950
• Criminal Procedure Code,1973