Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Supporting the pleas preferred by convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, RP Ravichandran & Nalini who were seeking premature release, the Tamil Nadu government on Thursday informed the Supreme Court that the state government’s decision to commute sentences is binding on the Governor.
The state government on September 9, 2018, passed a resolution recommending the Governor for the remission of life sentence of S Nalini including six other life convicts involved in the case.
Filing its reply to the pleas, the state said, “The state government is the competent authority to take decision on the petition filed by the writ petitioner under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and decision of the State Cabinet dated September 9, 2018, thereon is final and it can be exercised by His Excellency Governor of Tamil Nadu as per the aid and advice of the State Cabinet.”
It was further stated in the affidavit that the Governor of Tamil Nadu had forwarded the recommendation to the President of India and it still remains undecided by the President for one year and nine months.
“That the petitioner has been on ordinary leave from December 27, 2021 till date as sanctioned by the Government of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 then and there based on the request of the petitioner and her mother there under,” the affidavit also says.
The convicts had approached SC challenging Madras HC’s June 17 order of dismissing their plea for premature release and also seeking bail.
While observing that the HC did not have special powers enjoyed by the SC under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, a bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala had said, “The prayer for release of the petitioner by the government on its own pursuant to the recommendation of the Council of Ministers cannot thus be directed. The release cannot be directed even by the court in the absence of the acceptance of the resolution by the Governor of the State. The recommendation of the Council of Ministers has otherwise been sent to the President of India. The development aforesaid is during the pendency of the writ petition. Thus for the reasons aforesaid, the directions sought by the petitioner cannot be given by the court as otherwise, it does not have the power similar to what the Apex Court has under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”
Before the apex court, the convicts while seeking premature release had cited SC’s May 18 order invoking its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and ordering the release of AG Perarivalan, convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case who had served over 30 years in jail. A bench headed by Justice LN Rao had said that the Tamil Nadu state cabinet’s advice recommending the premature release of all the seven convicts was binding on the governor.
In September 2022, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna had sought Centre and Tamil Nadu government’s response in pleas of the convicts who are serving life imprisonment. Remarking that it won’t be appropriate to pass an order on bail ex parte, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna however refused to grant interim bail to the convicts. It posted the matter for October 14.
NEW DELHI: Supporting the pleas preferred by convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, RP Ravichandran & Nalini who were seeking premature release, the Tamil Nadu government on Thursday informed the Supreme Court that the state government’s decision to commute sentences is binding on the Governor.
The state government on September 9, 2018, passed a resolution recommending the Governor for the remission of life sentence of S Nalini including six other life convicts involved in the case.
Filing its reply to the pleas, the state said, “The state government is the competent authority to take decision on the petition filed by the writ petitioner under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and decision of the State Cabinet dated September 9, 2018, thereon is final and it can be exercised by His Excellency Governor of Tamil Nadu as per the aid and advice of the State Cabinet.”
It was further stated in the affidavit that the Governor of Tamil Nadu had forwarded the recommendation to the President of India and it still remains undecided by the President for one year and nine months.
“That the petitioner has been on ordinary leave from December 27, 2021 till date as sanctioned by the Government of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 then and there based on the request of the petitioner and her mother there under,” the affidavit also says.
The convicts had approached SC challenging Madras HC’s June 17 order of dismissing their plea for premature release and also seeking bail.
While observing that the HC did not have special powers enjoyed by the SC under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, a bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala had said, “The prayer for release of the petitioner by the government on its own pursuant to the recommendation of the Council of Ministers cannot thus be directed. The release cannot be directed even by the court in the absence of the acceptance of the resolution by the Governor of the State. The recommendation of the Council of Ministers has otherwise been sent to the President of India. The development aforesaid is during the pendency of the writ petition. Thus for the reasons aforesaid, the directions sought by the petitioner cannot be given by the court as otherwise, it does not have the power similar to what the Apex Court has under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”
Before the apex court, the convicts while seeking premature release had cited SC’s May 18 order invoking its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and ordering the release of AG Perarivalan, convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case who had served over 30 years in jail. A bench headed by Justice LN Rao had said that the Tamil Nadu state cabinet’s advice recommending the premature release of all the seven convicts was binding on the governor.
In September 2022, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna had sought Centre and Tamil Nadu government’s response in pleas of the convicts who are serving life imprisonment. Remarking that it won’t be appropriate to pass an order on bail ex parte, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna however refused to grant interim bail to the convicts. It posted the matter for October 14.
