| CITATION | [2015] 14 S.C.R. 613 |
YEAR OF JUDGEMENT | 2015 |
| PETITIONER | UNION OF INDIA |
RESPONDENT | V. SRIHARAN @ MURUGAN & ORS. |
STATUTES REFFERD IN THIS CASE | CrPC( 1973), IPC (1860) ,C.O.I |
BENCH | HON’BLE JUSTICE . FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA |
INTRODUCTIONS
The Supreme Court of India witnessing a notable shift in the jurisprudence regarding the powers of remission, commutation, and suspension of sentences in the Indian criminal justice system. It has its genesis, in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, which has been one of the most sensational and politically delicate cases in India. The respondent V. Sriharan @ Murugan, and others-all members of the banned organization Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)-were convicted for their involvement in the conspiracy of murder against a former Prime Minister of India. The convicts were sentenced to death; however, the Supreme Court saw it fit to commute their punishment to life imprisonment after prolonged consideration of undue delay involving their mercy petitions.
Thereafter, Tamil Nadu sought the pardon of the convicts in terms of its powers under Sections 432 and 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to the question of remission or commutation of sentences. On behalf of the Union of India, a counter was raised to this claim on the ground of prohibition against the exercise of such power by the State Government without the concurrence of the Union Government, in cases investigated by the CBI where offences fall within the realm of national security under special legislation like TADA. This therefore brought a host of quite important constitutional questions to the forefront regarding the Centre-State relationship, and the powers to remit under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the interpretation of the term ‘life’ in life sentences, namely, whether the Court can impose a sentence of life imprisonment for the convict’s whole natural life without the benefit of remission being conferred by the legislature or obtainable by the executive”. The case became a landmark case clarifying the limits of the judicial powers of sentencing and the interplay between judicial pronouncements, executive clemency & India’s federal structure.
FACT OF THE CASE
Rajiv Gandhi (born: June 2, murdered: May 21, 1991) Former Prime Minister of India, assassination from Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu. Thenmozhi Rajaratnam (also known as Dhanu: a member of the terrorist outfit Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) that she planned to assassinate fellow-member with herself as a human bomb. This killing was supposedly to avenge India for its part in Sri Lanka s bloody civil war, perpetrated by LTTE (Terrorists and dissruptive activities (prevention) act 1987 which was at war to carve out a separate Tamil state in Lanka). Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (TADA) conducted a detailed investigation This prompted to nab many other suspects i.e V.Sriharan (Murugan),Santhan, A.G. Perarivalan & others and they were booked with conspiracy and murder etc. Their sentences were murder, conspiracy and so on. The Designated TADA Court convicted them to death. The SC had affirmed their conviction again in 1999 But it commuted death sentences to life in prison in 2014, as per a saga of over 11 years waiting for mercy petitions to take final decisions. They were later challenged to reduce the sentences by the Tamil Nadu Government and freed . In 2011, the Union of India opposed this so as to raise important constitutional issues concerning classification under which there would grow question whether State values trumps Central Govt. power on mercy reduction/correction power for sentence, commutation etc.
ISSUES
1.Whether State Government having power to grant remission without prior permission of Central Government under Section 435(1)(a)CrPC in cases being probe by Central agencies or relevant to national security
2 Whether imprisonment for the sake of life or can remission reduce it?
3.Whether under Articles 72 and 161 of Constitution, is the constitutional power affected by provisions of Statutes like Sections 432,433 and 435 CrPC ?
4.. Whether No power of suo moto remission by the State Government in absence of application made by convict under Section 432 (2) CrPC ?
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court of India, by a majority of 3:2 in its judgment delivered on December 2, 2015 held that power to give remission, commutation or premature release of a convict under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) even though the inquiry is conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any other central agency vests only in the Central Government. In addition, if the offence is a case of matter which has its source in executive power of union as enunciated per Article 73 read with Article 246 and Schedule VII of Constitution then it will be power of Central Government and State government cannot exercise its power of remission w/o prior concurrence by the Centre. The Court stated that the appropriate State ought NOT be taken on the basis of location where the trial court is situated or place of detention, but ought NOT to be decided by nature of offence and investigation agency. It said that in no case are the State entirely free to remit or commute sentences, and it shall always require prior consultation and clearance of the Central Government to reflect supremacy of Union when its executive power supersedes. Answer The Court further directed that, in whatever case at common law sentence of life imprisonment till natural death in India shall be taken to mean imprisonment for whole life of convict unless it properly remitted or commuted under law. More over, the bench said courts have jurisdiction to pass punishment more than 14 years of imprisonment and if need be, can explicitly state in the sentences that there would be no parole or clemency as per the facts and circumstances of the case. The court defined, the life imprisonment would mean that convict is to serve the balance of natural life unless remitted by operation of law of the appropriate Government. The judgment also explained that even Article 72 and article 161 of the Constitution bestow constitutional clemency powers to President & Governor; these are separate from statutory powers contained in Sections 432, 433 & 433-A CrPC and such statutory powers have to be dynamically operational within the confines of the Constitution. Remission, commutation or premature release may be granted but by a judicial authority within the constitutional and statutory framework of a majority noted that The majority of the states the court also said that while Tamil Nadu government should have obtained central govt. consent before remission in case under consideration. Consequently the order of the Court thus said that State Govt cant exercise remission power if said investigation was by CBI or whatsoever concerns’ to the executive action of Union.
REASONING
The Supreme Court, held that powers in relation to distribution of executive authority between Central and States as provided in Articles 72, 73, 161 and 162 of our Constitution is at the core of the federal structure. In this regard, the court held that when an offence is investigated by the CBI or an other Central agency under the Delhi Special Police (DSP) Act, 1946 this becomes a matter that comes under executive power of Union. Hence in such circumstances, it is power to remission and commutation under Sections 432,3 of CrPC which cannot be exercised by State Govt alone. The Court stated by way of a reference that even though Section 432 of CrPC confers upon the appropriate Govt. Of the Union to suspend or remit sentences, the term “govt” under articles 73 and 162 is not appropriate. In respect of offences touching matters of the Union List, remission lies with the Government of the Union. The Bench also held that unfettered powers at the hands of States for such remissions will lead to arbitrariness, misuse or political considerations specially in cases dealing with National Security, Public Order and Foreign Policy. The court additionally observed: Furthermore the constitutional powers in Articles 72 and/161 are distinct and there statutory powers under Sections 432, 433, 433-A CrPC cannot be used as constructive within the existing limits without violating the other shores of Federalism. The Court stated that a life sentence, unless the competent Government otherwise remits it, is a sentence for the remainder of the convict’s natural life. It placed a limit on the remission powers to avoid the frustration of a Court’s sentencing decision and to maintain a balance of the convict’s rights, the rights of victims and society in general.
ANALYSIS
The case arose out of the Government of Tamil Nadu’s proposal to remit the life sentences of the convicts in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi without taking the consent of the Central Government, as it was a case investigated by the CBI. A majority of the Supreme Court held that such a remission was impermissible for want of concurrence of the Union Government since the offence in this instance pertained to executive powers of the Union. The Court interpreted the expression “appropriate Government” as used under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC, cognizant of Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution respectively, and held that the authority to remit a sentence in a matter investigated by central agencies, i.e. the CBI, lies only with the Union. The Court explained that even though both the President and the Governor have clemency powers under Articles 72 and 161 respectively, these powers are distinct from the powers under the CrPC under the Constitution thus limiting them.The Court also gave critical clarification into the character of life imprisonment, stating that life imprisonment means the prisoner’s sentence is to endure for the natural life of the prisoner unless the Government provides appropriate remission or commutation. The ruling set out, again, that life imprisonment could not only mean or simply mean imprisonment for 14 or 20 years irrespective of the appropriate remission. In arriving at this position, the Court seemed very concerned with deterrent sentencing while also balancing the complete interests of victims and society. The general concern of the Court was the potential arbitrary use of remission for political purposes, especially in relation to serious offences arising with national security, sovereignty, and public order. In holding against States arbitrarily remitting sentences of imprisonment in instances that related specifically to the Union, the Court reaffirmed a federal structure and the doctrine of separation of powers entrenched in the Constitution. Emphasis again was placed on the need for the remission of punishment that is clearly defined and in a clear process that does not detract from the ability of the judiciary to pronounce in the domain of its jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Supreme Court has provided an important interpretation of the remission powers embodied in the constitutional and statutory framework of India. The Court found that in cases where the offence is being investigated by a central agency such as the CBI, and concerns an issue that is in the executive power of the Union Government, the authority to provide remission, commutation or premature release of the convict is exclusively the Central Government’s prerogative, not the State Government’s. The Court also upheld that life imprisonment referred to life imprisonment, subject to any remission or commutation by the applicable Government in accordance with the law. The judgement was a reminder that remission powers could not be exercised by any government in an arbitrary, political or unconstitutional manner especially in the case of convicted offences which involved threats to the sovereignty, integrity and security of the country. The court stated that the principle of federalism ought to be respected and no government ought to act beyond their constitutionally defined powers. Ultimately, by limiting the unfettered remission powers of State Governments in these sensitive cases, the judgement sought to balance different interests including justice, the public interest, the interests of victims and national security and also respect the law.
REFERENCE
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50602236/
- https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af42e4b0149711415f87/amp
- https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/view_judgment?id=MTQ5NDY=
This article is written by Saumya Singh, a student of United University and intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.