S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, M. JOTHIRAMAN
Vanniya Raja – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by its, The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
[Order of the Court is made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
Under assail is the order of rejection seeking premature release of the convict prisoner in G.O.(D).No.1049, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 06.09.2024.
2. The petitioner/convict prisoner was convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) for life imprisonment and also convicted under Section 201 of IPC for one year imprisonment. The petitioner is in actual imprisonment for about 13 years. The application seeking premature release was submitted under the scheme approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.488, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 15.11.2021. Under the scheme for premature release in G.O.Ms.No.488 dated 15.11.2021, completion of ten years imprisonment is fixed as criteria. The application submitted was placed before the State Committee for scrutinisation. The State Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release. The State Cabinet approved the recommendation of the State Committee, but the Hon'ble Governor disagreed with the decision of the State Cabinet approving the recommendations made by the State Committee. Thus, the impugned order came to be passed and the present writ petition f
A.G.Perarivalan vs. State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT/ MMDA, Chennai
The State of Haryana and Others vs. Raj Kumar @ Bittu
Epuru Sudhakar and Another vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and other
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 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 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 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.
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.
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'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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.