Author- Srishti Gupta, University Five Year Law College, University Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Arts. 161 in The Constitution of India

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 [2]. Satpal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2000(3) The case involves a writ petition challenging the G.O. of the Haryana Governor, which granted a pardon to Siriyans Kumar Jain, who was convicted of murder and other offences. The Supreme Court found that the G.O. was passed without proper application of mind and was based on incomplete information regarding the convict’s status and conduct The S.C. quashed the G.O. granting pardon, allowing for the possibility of reconsideration based on relevant materials [3]

Ss. 435 in the CRPC, 1973

 State Government to act after consultation with the Central Government in certain cases.

The powers conferred by SS. 432 and 433 upon the State Government to remit or commute a sentence, in any case where the sentence is for an offence –

1. which was investigated by the DSPE constituted under the DSPE Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make an investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, or
2. which involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the C.G. or
3. which was committed by a person in the service of the C.G. while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, shall not be exercised by the State Government except after consultation with the C.G.

This case revolves around the principles of remission and classification of prisoners under Ss. 435 CRPC, and the Governor’s powers under Arts. 161. The Governor’s remission power, though broad, is subject to judicial review and must align with constitutional safeguards like the Right to equality and the right to life and liberty. This case explores whether the state’s policy of excluding certain convicts from remission violates constitutional guarantees.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

1. Nalini was convicted for participation in criminal conspiracy and her common intention with others of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination.
2. The appellant was arrested on 14.6.1991 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, SIT, Chennai in connection with the SRI Rajiv Gandhi assassination case for the offences under Ss. 302, 307, 326 IPC, Ss. 3 to 5 of the Indian Explosives Act and Ss. 3 to 5 of the TADA
3. The charge sheet was filed in the designated court no.1in Poonawalla, Chennai against the 41 accused for the series of offences after an  investigation in 1992
4. In the assassination 12 accused died, 3 absconded and 26 accused including the appellant faced trial before the court.
5. In 1998 all 26 accused were awarded the death penalty.
6. In 1999 SC acquitted 19 persons and confirmed the death sentence against 4including the appellant, and 3 accused including the appellant’s life sentence were awarded.
7. Thereafter appellant applied to the governor of Tamil Nadu for clemency and on its rejection, she filed a writ petition in 1999 before the court of Madras ultimately, she got the remission and her death sentence was converted to life convict.
8. She was originally sentenced to death but later commuted to life imprisonment. She completed 14 years in prison in 2005 and became eligible for premature release provided under SS. 433(A) of CRPC.
9. However, the appellant’s name was not considered for premature release either in the year 2005 in 2006 or even in 2007.
10. But was denied premature release due to a case which fell under SS. 435 CRPC. are not entitled to premature release.
11. Then a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus to call for the records relating to G.O.(Ms)No.873, dated 14.9.2006, issued by the first respondent, quash the clause (v) of Paragraph 1 of the said G.O. and consequently direct the respondents to consider her for premature release from prison has filed by Nalini the appellant.
12. The said W.P., by the order dated 24.9.2008 dismissed by the court, the present W. A has been filed by the writ petitioner. She challenged the government’s policy of excluding cases under SS. 435 CRPC. (W.P.No.11118 of 2008)

Factual Background of the Case

1. Nalini argued that the policy violated her right to equality and was arbitrary. The state countered, asserting that such exclusions were valid given the nature of crimes investigated by special agencies like the CBI is a reasonable classification laid down under SS. 435 of
2. in which She challenged the government’s policy of excluding cases under SS. 435 (W.P.No.11118 of 2008) further praying to direct the respondents to order her premature release from the prison.
3. Subramanian Swamy, the former Minister of Law and Justice and the President of the Janata Party prayed to implead him as a party respondent the said application for impleading was dismissed but permitted Dr. Ubramanian Swamy to assist the Court on the issues involved under the nomenclature ‘Public Representation by the court.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether G.O.(Ms)No.873 of denying premature release to life convicts whose cases fall under SS. 435 of CRPC, violates Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution?
2. Whether the classification made under the said G.O.(Ms)No.873 is reasonable and justified under the law?

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that

• G.O.(Ms)No.873 of denying remission to the appellant is discriminatory, as it excludes certain convicts based on the investigating agency for 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.
• This type of expulsion based on the investigating agency or Denial of premature release infringes the appellant’s fundamental rights Right to equality and right to life and liberty.
• The Governor’s clemency power under Arts. 161 cannot be restricted by executive guidelines.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that

1. The classification under SS.435 of CRPC is reasonable, based on the gravity of the offence and its societal impact and the appellant is fit into this category.
2. Life imprisonment implies imprisonment for the convict’s natural life, and remission is a matter of policy, not a right and policy of remission is subjected to certain conditions laid down in SS. 435 of CRPC (SS. 435 of CRPC discussed above in the introductory parts)
3. G.O.(Ms)No.873 for clemency under Arts. 72 and 161 are subjected to judicial review given under Kehar Singh and Anr. Etc vs Union of India and Anr

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• SS. 433A, CRPC: “Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 432 CRPC, a person convicted of an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided shall not be released before completing 14 years of imprisonment.”

Foreigners Act, SS. 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances, SS. 3, 4 and 5 of the TADA

JUDGEMENT

• G.O.(Ms)No.873 Validity: The classification of life convict section 435 of CRPC for granting remission was upheld as reasonable and in alignment with the objectives of societal safety and justice.
• Nature of Clemency Powers: The Governor’s exercise of clemency was deemed judicious and consistent with constitutional mandates.

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. The exclusion of certain life convicts from general remission orders, based on the nature of the crime and the investigating agency, is justified under the Right to life and liberty Right to equality.
2. The power exercised by the governor of Tamilnadu is judicious.
3. O.(Ms)No.873 of rejecting the  appellant plea is not discriminatory, as it excludes certain convicts based on the investigating agency for 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

OBITER DICTA

Remission policies should balance individual rights with public interest which was underscored in the judgement of this case.e

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

1. Poweexercisedse by the governor Tamilnadudu, granted under Arts. 161 was judicious in manner
2. Reasonable classification of life convicts falling inside or outside of SS. 435 of CRPC  is not a violation of the Right to life and liberty Right to equality.
3. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the government’s policy and recognizing the gravity of the crime committed by the appellant. It emphasized that remission is a discretionary privilege and not an entitlement, ensuring justice aligns with broader societal objectives.
4. The appellant, a life convict in a crime that was cunning in conception, meticulous in planning and ruthless in execution in taking away the life of the former Prime Minister of India, cannot seek premature release, as of right, though she got a right to seek for consideration of her plea.
5. The appellant was originally awarded a death sentence and her sentence was commuted to one of life imprisonment purely under humanitarian grounds, she constitutes a distinct class and cannot claim equality with those sentenced to life imprisonment.

6. Or all the above reasons, we find no ground to cause our interference with the order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Indian kanoon

[2] Indian kanoon

[3] Supreme today