In a severe blow to the Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court held Wednesday that the state has no power to order the suo motu release of seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case — Murugan, Santhan, Periarivalan (whose death sentence was commuted to life) and that of Nalini, Robert Pius, Jayakumar and Ravichandran, serving life terms, by granting remission.
Last year the court had stayed their release on a petition by the Centre that the Tamil Nadu government had not consulted it before passing the release order in exercise of its rem-ission powers. The Centre said since the case was probed by the CBI, it alone could grant remission.
A five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and Justices Ibrahim Kalifulla, A.M. Sapre, Pinaki Ghose and U.U. Lalit, in a 258-page verdict, held that no suo motu power of remission is exercisable under Section 432(1) CrPC. The bench said it can only be initiated on an application by the person convicted and the ultimate order of suspension or remission should be guided by the opinion of the presiding officer of the concerned court.
The bench said the validity TN government’s February 19, 2014 release order will be considered afresh by another three-judge bench in the light of principles laid down in this verdict.Last year a three-judge bench referred several questions for determination by a Constitution Bench, including whether a special category of sentence instead of death for a term exceeding 14 years can be made by putting that category beyond grant of remission; whether the power under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC by a government would be available even after the constitutional power under Articles 72 and 161 by the President and the governor was exercised as well as the power exercised by this court; whether the state or Central government had the primacy under Section 432(7) CrPC; whether powers under Section 432(1) can be exercised suo motu without following the procedure prescribed under Section 432(2); and whether the expression “consultation” stipulated in Section 435(1) really means “concurrence”.
In its verdict, the Constitution Bench said in cases investigated by the CBI or other Central agencies, the power to grant remission by the appropriate government will only mean the Central government. The state government initiating the process of remission should consult the Centre and effective consultation would mean the concurrence of the Centre.
It held that imprisonment for life in terms of Section 53 read with Section 45 of the Indian Penal Code would only mean imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict. Writing the majority judgment, Justice Kalifulla rejected the submission that a life sentence would mean only 14 years and the trial courts cannot award fixed terms of sentence — 20 or 25 years or life sentences for the rest of a convict’s natural life.
The right to claim remission, commutation, reprieve etc. as provided under Article 72 or Article 161 of the Constitution will always be available, being constitutional remedies untouchable by the court.
