Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M. Radhakrishnan.
For the Respondents: R. Shunmugasundaram, P. Muthukumar, A.G. Shakeenaa, Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, Muniyapparaj, S. Santosh.

What is the proper constitutional role and required formal authorisation for the Governor or President to grant remission or release of a life/death sentence under Articles 161 and 72 of the Constitution? What is the maintainability and propriety of a writ petition seeking release based on Council of Ministers' advice when the Governor has not signed off or when the matter has been referred to the President? What are the implications of the Maru Ram and A.G. Perarivalan decisions on the necessity of Governor/President signature versus High Court direction for premature release under Article 161/72?

Key Points: - The Governor’s signature/authorization is mandatory for remission/release even when advised by the Council of Ministers (!) (!) . - A mere Council of Ministers’ resolution cannot release without Governor’s acceptance and/or formal order; otherwise Article 161 would be redundant (!) (!) (!) . - In cases involving life/death sentences, the Governor or President must act in accordance with constitutional provisions; High Court directions cannot substitute for formal authorisation, except where Article 142 powers are invoked by the Supreme Court, not the High Court (!) (!) (!) . - Repeated petitions for the same relief are not maintainable; earlier judgments bind the subsequent petitions unless overturned on appeal (!) (!) . - The respondent’s argument that referral to the President under Article 72 is proper where multiple offences are involved is accepted; but release cannot be directed without proper authorisation (!) (!) (!) .

What is the proper constitutional role and required formal authorisation for the Governor or President to grant remission or release of a life/death sentence under Articles 161 and 72 of the Constitution?

What is the maintainability and propriety of a writ petition seeking release based on Council of Ministers' advice when the Governor has not signed off or when the matter has been referred to the President?

What are the implications of the Maru Ram and A.G. Perarivalan decisions on the necessity of Governor/President signature versus High Court direction for premature release under Article 161/72?