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.

ORDER :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Under assail is the order of the Government issued in G.O.(D)No.398, Home(Prison-IV) Department, dated 20.03.2024.

2. The facts in brief would reveal that the petitioner is a life convict prisoner, admittedly completed more than 20 years of actual imprisonment. The Trial Court imposed sentence of Death Penalty, which was modified by the High Court as Life Sentence. The judgment of the High Court was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

3. Mr. Sankara Subbu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that co-accused in the Criminal case Mr.Ilango @ Murugan S/o. Paulchamy naicker, was prematurely released by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.184/Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 06.03.2024. Scheme introduced by the Government in G. O. (Ms) No.430, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 11.08.2023 contemplates eligibility for premature release. When the benefit of premature release was granted in favour of co-accused, namely, Ilango @ Murugan S/o. Paulsamy Naicker, the said benefit is to be extended to the petitioner before this Court. He cannot be discriminated since the petitioner also had undergone the actual imprisonment for more than 20 years. The eligibility for premature release as contemplated in the said G.O.(Ms)No.430 is completion of 14 years of imprisonment. For all these reasons, the order impugned is to be set aside.

4. Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinna, learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents produced the original files relating to the impugned G.O.(D).No.398, Home (Prison -IV) Department, dated 20.03.2024.

5. We have carefully gone through the original files. The eligibility for premature release of the petitioner is not in dispute with reference to the conditions stipulated in G.O.(Ms.)No.430. The State Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release. The file was circulated. The Deputy Secretary, the Principal Secretary, Home Department, the Secretary, Law Department, the Chief Secretary have approved the recommendations of the State Committee for premature release of the petitioner. The file was circulated to the Hon'ble Minister of Law and thereafter to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Law Minister and Hon'ble Chief Minister approved the recommendations of the State Committee for premature release of the petitioner. Finally, it was circulated to the Hon'ble Governor for consideration. The Hon'ble Governor opined that the case of the petitioner deserves no merit for consideration since the convict prisoner is a pedophile and he raped and killed a minor girl. Taking in exception to the nature of offence, the Hon'ble Governor had taken a dissenting view and disapproved the recommendations of the State Committee for premature release of the petitioner under the Scheme for remission.

6. The learned State Public Prosecutor would further submit that since the Hon'ble Governor has taken a dissenting view, the Government has issued the impugned G.O. and in all other aspects, the Government formed an opinion that the petitioner is eligible for premature release under the Scheme and the State Committee recommended the case of the petitioner, which was approved by the State Cabinet. Consequently, the Hon'ble Minister for Law and the Hon'ble Chief Minister approved the file.

7. In this backdrop, we would like to consider the implications of the dissenting opinion of the Hon'ble Governor