CHENNAI: Holding that the governor is bound to act as per the recommendations of the state cabinet under Article 161 of the Constitution in the case of premature release of prisoners, the Madras High Court has disapproved Governor R N Ravi’s decision to reject the advice of the government to release a life convict.
The governor had rejected the premature release of the prisoner, who has been lodged in jail for more than 20 years.
“The power of an appropriate government to issue general or special orders allowing remissions is traceable under Section 432 CrPC and the policies in question are statutory in nature. In the context of the above policy (on premature release), the power under Article 161 can be exercised by the state government, and not by the governor on his own. The advice of the appropriate government binds the Head of the State,” said a division bench of Justices S M Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam in a recent order.
The bench elaborated that the law laid down by a catena of high court judgments is well settled: the advice of the state cabinet is binding on the governor in the exercise of his power under Article 161.
The order was passed on a petition filed by Veera Bharathi, a life convict, seeking premature release. He was sentenced to death, along with two others, in 1999 by a court in Virudhnagar district, for rape and murder. The sentence was commuted to life by the HC in 2000.
Premature release not an absolute right: HC
Veera Bharathi’s sentence was commuted to life by the Madras High Court in 2000. His co-accused Ilangovan was prematurely released.
Veera Bharathi filed an application in 2024 seeking premature release with the state government, which decided to release him, but the governor rejected the decision. Subsequently, the government accepted the governor’s decision and issued another order not to release him. Challenging this, he approached the court.
Advocate R Sankarasubbu, assisted by D Mario Johnson, submitted that the governor accepted the state’s decision to release co-accused Ilangovan but rejected the decision regarding Veera Bharathi who has completed more than 20 years in jail. The nature of crime is insignificant for consideration of premature releases, which are done as per the government’s policy.
The bench said, “We are of the considered opinion that the opinion formed by the governor may not be wholly relevant with reference to the commission of offence by the petitioner in the case.” The governor has also not considered the fact that the co-accused was already prematurely released, the bench said, adding that it would be insufficient to merely reject an application for premature release on the ground of the offence.
However, the bench held that premature release is not an absolute right. It quashed the impugned order of the state government and ordered the government to re-circulate the files and decide afresh on merits and in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible.
