Back
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B. R. GAVAI, A. S. BOPANNA
A. G. Perarivalan – Appellant
Versus
State, through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT/MMDA, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
1. Appellant is accused No. 18 in Crime No. 329 of 1991 registered at Sriperumbudur Police Station for assassination of Shri Rajeev Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India, on 21.05.1991. The Appellant was convicted for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) the Arms Act, 1951, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Passport Act, 1967, the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short ‘TADA’). He was sentenced to death by the designated TADA Court. This Court, by a judgment dated 11.05.1999, upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant. However, the conviction and sentence under the TADA were set aside. The review petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed by an order dated 08.10.1999. The Appellant, along with three others, filed mercy petitions before the Governor of Tamil Nadu under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which were rejected on 27.10.1999. The mercy petition of the Appellant was reconsidered by the Governor, pursuant to an order passed by the High Court of Tamil Nadu and was rejected
Governor is formal head and sole repository of executive power but is incapable of acting except on, and according to, advice of his Council of Ministers – Advice of State Cabinet is binding on Gover....
The Governor is bound by the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, but his formal authorization is required for release, as observed in Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147.
The Governor's formal authorization was required for release, despite the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, and the court did not have the power to direct release without the Governor's acc....
The advice of the State Cabinet is binding on the Governor regarding premature release under Article 161, and judicial review is permissible if the Governor's decision lacks application of mind.
The Governor's dissenting opinion on premature release is not binding if it contradicts the State Cabinet's recommendations under Article 161 of the Constitution.
The advice of the State Cabinet is binding on the Governor regarding premature release under Article 161, and such decisions are subject to judicial review.
The Governor's dissent on premature release is not binding on the State Cabinet's recommendation, which must adhere to statutory eligibility criteria.
The Governor's discretion under Article 161 is bound by the State Government's advice regarding remission, and reasons for dissent must be valid and substantiated.
The advice of the State Cabinet is binding on the Governor regarding premature release under Article 161, and judicial review is available for arbitrary decisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
