ADGP's Remission Order for MLA's Murderer Declared 'Nullity' as He Lacked Authority to Pardon: Gujarat High Court - 2025-08-27

Gujarat High Court Quashes Premature Release of MLA's Murderer, Declares ADGP's Order a "Nullity"

Ahmedabad, Gujarat – In a significant ruling upholding the supremacy of the rule of law, the Gujarat High Court has declared the 2018 premature release of Aniruddhsinh Mahipatsinh Jadeja, a convict serving a life sentence for the 1988 murder of sitting MLA Popatbhai Sorathiya, as "illegal and without any authority of law." The bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar quashed the release order, branding it a "nullity," and directed Jadeja to surrender within two weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.

The Court found that the release order, issued by the then Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), Jails, T.S. Bishth, was an arbitrary usurpation of power belonging solely to the "appropriate government" and was passed without jurisdiction.

---

Background of a Brazen Crime

The case dates back to Independence Day, 1988, when Popatbhai Sorathiya, a sitting MLA and the grandfather of the petitioner, was shot dead by Aniruddhsinh Jadeja during a public flag-hoisting ceremony. Despite being acquitted by a TADA court after numerous witnesses turned hostile, the Supreme Court convicted Jadeja in 1997, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

The judgment details Jadeja's history of absconding for three years post-conviction and manipulating the system, including attending political rallies in 2017 while technically in custody for medical treatment, an act a coordinate bench had previously described as "shocking."

The central issue arose on January 29, 2018, when Jadeja's son submitted an application for his father's release to ADGP T.S. Bishth. On the very same day, Bishth issued a letter to the Superintendent of Junagadh Jail, directing Jadeja's immediate release, citing a government remission policy from January 25, 2017.

Arguments Before the Court

• Petitioner's Counsel, Mr. Bhargav Bhatt, argued that the ADGP's order was ab initio void . He contended that Bishth was not the "appropriate government" and had no authority to grant remission or a pardon. Furthermore, the 2017 circular he relied on was a one-time measure for Republic Day 2017, had expired, and contained mandatory conditions—such as a review by the Jail Advisory Committee—that were blatantly ignored.

• State of Gujarat's Counsel, Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave, supported the petitioner's stance, admitting to the court that the ADGP had acted without authority and that the proper procedures were not followed.

• Respondent No. 4's Counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. I.H. Syed, defended the release, arguing that since the government circular was issued under the Governor's constitutional powers (Article 161), it overrode statutory procedures like those in Section 432 of the CrPC. He asserted that the ADGP, as the administrative head of prisons, was competent to pass the order.

Court's Analysis: A Blatant Abuse of Power

Justice Suthar, in a detailed analysis, dismantled the respondents' arguments, holding that the ADGP's action was a clear case of exceeding jurisdiction. The Court established several key points:

1. Lack of Authority: The power to grant remission or pardon rests with the "appropriate government" (the State Government, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers in the name of the Governor). An individual officer like the ADGP does not fall under this definition and cannot usurp this constitutional or statutory function.

2. Order as a Nullity: Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India , the Court held that an order passed by an incompetent authority is non-est and a nullity. The judgment stated, "respondent No.3 has passed impugned order without any authority, which is nullity."

3. Expired and Conditional Policy: The 2017 remission circular was explicitly a "one-time" measure that "cannot be extended to a future date." The ADGP's order in 2018 was therefore based on a non-existent policy. Moreover, the circular itself mandated scrutiny by the Jail Advisory Committee, which was admittedly never done.

4. Distinction Between Pardon and Remission: The Court noted that the ADGP's letter used the word for "pardon" ( Rajya Mafi ), a power exclusively held by the Governor or President. The order was passed without any of the procedural safeguards required for either a pardon or remission.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

The Court's strong stance was reflected in its observations:

"It appears that respondent No.3 has arbitrarily usurped the power of government."

"Rule of law does not mean to protect fortunate few and justice is not only for accused or convict. The justice is for victim also and right to justice is indispensible human and fundamental right."

On the issue of delay in the petition, the Court accepted the petitioner's explanation of fear due to Jadeja's high-handedness, stating, "illegal act never become the legal one or attain the finality or get seal of confirmation to such illegal order."

Final Verdict and Its Implications

The High Court allowed the petition, declaring the ADGP's letter dated January 29, 2018, to be without force of law. The court has directed Aniruddhsinh Jadeja to surrender to jail authorities within two weeks to serve his remaining sentence. The State has been instructed to consider any future remission application from Jadeja strictly in accordance with the law and established Supreme Court guidelines.

The judgment serves as a powerful reminder that administrative officers cannot overstep their authority and that the exercise of powers like remission must adhere to the rule of law, ensuring transparency, fairness, and due process.