Back
1996 Supreme(All) 1470
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
S.H.A. RAZA, A.N. GUPTA, JJ.
Ayodhya – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 40 of 1995
Decided On : 12-07-1996
The Governor's power to grant pardon, remit or commute sentences under Article 161 is absolute and not subject to statutory provisions. The court cannot suggest guidelines to the Governor while exercising this power, as it is presumed that the Governor has acted properly after an objective consideration.
Headnote:
ARTICLE 161 - POWER OF GOVERNOR TO GRANT PARDON, ETC., AND TO SUSPEND, REMIT OR COMMUTE SENTENCES IN CERTAIN CASES - ARTICLES 72 AND 161 - SCOPE AND EXTENT OF POWER - COURT'S POWER TO RECOMMEND EXERCISE OF POWER - CONDITIONS FOR EXERCISE OF POWER - RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were convicted of various offenses, including murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment, filed writ petitions challenging the validity of Government Orders issued by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which provided for the release of certain categories of prisoners who had completed more than 25 or 30 years of their sentence with remission.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Governor's power to grant pardon, remit or commute sentences under Article 161 is absolute and not subject to statutory provisions. The court also held that the court cannot suggest guidelines to the Governor while exercising this power, as it is presumed that the Governor has acted properly after an objective consideration.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government Orders issued by the Governor under Article 161 were valid and constitutional. 2. Whether the court could recommend to the Governor to exercise his power under Article 161 in favor of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Governor's power to grant pardon, remit or commute sentences under Article 161 is absolute and not subject to statutory provisions. The court also held that the court cannot suggest guidelines to the Governor while exercising this power, as it is presumed that the Governor has acted properly after an objective consideration. 2. The court held that it could not issue any direction to the Governor to exercise his power under Article 161 for a particular person or a group of persons, but it could certainly recommend to the Governor to exercise his power in appropriate cases.
Final Decision: The court directed the Chief Secretary of the State to place a copy of the judgment before the Governor of Uttar Pradesh to enable him to consider the cases of the petitioners afresh in accordance with the provisions of Article 161 of the Constitution of India and pass appropriate orders. The court also directed the Chief Secretary of the State to have a fresh look into the impugned Government Orders and may amend or rectify or delete certain clauses in the said orders.
S.H.A. RAZA, J.
1. A common question of facts and law arises in all these writ petitions, which have been filed by the convicts who have completed more than thirty years of sentence with remission on 15th August, 1995 praying that they may be ordered to be released In pursuance of the Government Order No. 2879/22.2.1994-8(48)/94 (Home (Prison) Anubhag-2, dated 25th July, 1994. Most of the convicts were sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment for committing an offence Under Sections 302/201, I.P.C. and other offences punishable under Indian Penal Code.
2. The aforesaid Government Order has been issued in the name of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of his powers contained in Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Similar orders were issued by the Government Order No. 4170/22.2.1994-18(82)/94 (Home Prison) Anubhag-2, dated 25th October, 1994 which provided that these convicts who have completed on 2nd October, 1994 a sentence of twenty five years with remission and their conduct in Jail has been found to be good, shall be released on ball. The said Government Orders were subjected to following terms and conditions:
1. Only those prisoners shall be released who have been convicted by the Courts in Uttar Pradesh and the State Government was empowered to release them.
2. The following prisoners shall not be entitled for release:
(a) Whose appeal or revision were pending in any Court on 15th August, 1994 or on 15th August, 1994 they were released on bail under the order passed by the Court.
(b) The prisoner who is the resident of any foreign country, if there existed any doubt about the citizenship of that prisoner then in that situation before releasing him, it would be necessary to get the matter verified through the District Magistrate or Superintendent of Police.
(c) The prisoners who have been convicted by the Court Marshal.
(d) Persons detained.
(e) The Prisoners convicted for committing an offence under Foreigner's Act and Indian Passport Act.
(f) Prisoners convicted under the provisions of Sections 3 to 10 of the Officers Secret Act, 1967.
(g) Prisoners convicted Under Sections 2 and 3 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and convicted for committing on offence Under Sections 121 to 131 of Indian Penal Code.
(h) Habitual convicts.
(i) Convicts/Detenu under the provisions of Sections 106 to 110, Code of Civil Procedure
(j) Prisoners convicted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 amended from time to time and convicts undergoing sentence for committing offences Under Sections S. 9, 10 and 11 of the Indian Penal Code.
(k) Convicts sentenced for committing an offence to outrage the modesty of ladies through force.
3. It was argued very vehemently on behalf of the Petitioners that the said Government Order is manifestly unjust, unfair and unreasonable. If a person has been awarded life sentence for committing a murder Under Sections 302, I.P.C. and has also been punished for committing an offence causing disappearance of evidence of the offence Under Sections 201. I.P.C. and they had underwent the punishment for committing an offence Under Sections 201, I.P.C, say for a period of three years, to ten years, and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, then ii would be unfair to deny them the benefit of the Government Order. It was submitted that when a person who has committed a murder, which is the most heinous crime, could be ordered to be released, while the other person who has also been convicted for minor offences, along with the murder and had undergone the sentence cannot be released.
4. It was submitted that in most of the offences, which have been included In the Government Order, a life sentence cannot be awarded, hence its mention, was not at all proper. It seems that the State Government in a most mechanical, casual and cursory manner, issued the present Government Order, hence all those terms and conditions, which have been enforced in the Government Order, deserves to be ignored or q
