Madras High Court on the Governor's Role in Premature Release of Life-Term Convicts

In a landmark ruling, the Madras High Court emphasized that the Governor is bound by the State Cabinet's decision when considering the premature release of life-term convicts. The case concerned Veera Bharathi, a life-term prisoner seeking early release, which was supported by the Tamil Nadu government but rejected by the Governor. The Court clarified that under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution, the Governor must follow the State's advice, and any delay in exercising this power could be subject to judicial review.

Background of the Case

Veera Bharathi, serving a life sentence for the rape and murder of a minor, sought premature release after having served over 20 years in prison. The Tamil Nadu government’s committee, which includes the Prisons Department's Director-General, recommended his release due to good conduct. The committee's decision was endorsed by both the State’s Law Minister and the Chief Minister. However, the Governor denied this plea, deeming Bharathi’s crime too heinous for consideration.

The Court's Legal Reasoning

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in AG Perarivalan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, where it was held that the Governor's powers under Article 161 must be exercised in accordance with the advice of the State Cabinet. The Court emphasized that while the Governor has the constitutional authority to grant pardons or commute sentences, this power is not absolute and must align with the recommendations of the appropriate government.

Moreover, the Court ruled that any delay in the Governor’s decision, or refusal to act on the State’s recommendations, could be subject to judicial review, particularly if it is not attributed to any fault of the prisoner. The judgment underscores the balance of power between the Governor and the State and ensures that the Governor's office does not arbitrarily override decisions made by the Cabinet.

Supreme Court Precedents

The High Court's decision draws heavily from prior judgments, reinforcing the well-established principle that the Governor's role is not discretionary but bound by the advice of the State Cabinet. In AG Perarivalan, the Supreme Court explicitly laid down the law, holding that the Governor is required to follow the Cabinet's advice in matters related to the remission of sentences. This case became a pivotal reference point for the Madras High Court in deciding Bharathi’s petition.

Additionally, the Court mentioned that State policies regarding premature release or remission of sentences are composite frameworks that consider factors under both Article 161 of the Constitution and sections 432, 433, and 433(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the legal framework involves both constitutional and statutory provisions that the Governor must adhere to.

Court's Final Directive

In its final ruling, the High Court allowed Bharathi’s petition and directed the Tamil Nadu government to reconsider its earlier decision and re-circulate the necessary files for Bharathi's release on merit. This directive highlighted the Governor’s limited role in such cases and reiterated the supremacy of the Cabinet’s decision in exercising clemency powers under Article 161.

Conclusion and Implications

This judgment strengthens the legal principle that the Governor’s power is not independent but is closely tied to the advice given by the State Cabinet, particularly in matters of clemency and premature release. It serves as a reminder that the Governor’s role is constitutionally regulated, ensuring that decisions on the release of life-term convicts are made judiciously and not arbitrarily delayed. The ruling reinforces the delicate balance between executive and constitutional powers, providing clarity on the legal boundaries within which the Governor operates.

Court Practice Community

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community