Paridhi Arya
Published on April 28, 2022 at 15:30 IST
The Bench of Justice LN Rao and Justice B R Gavai of Supreme Court questioned Centre that why A G Perarivalan who has served 36 years in Imprisonment cannot be released in Case of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination.
The Court pointed out the objection raised by the Centre that Governor of Tamil Nadu forwarded the decision of State Cabinet to President, who is Competent Authority to provide Mercy Plea.
The Bench ordered Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj representing the state to seek proper instructions from the Centre in a week otherwise Court will release the Perarivalan by accepting his contentions.
Natraj submitted in the Court that Governor is not the Competent Authority but the President is competent authority when Punishment of Death Commutes to Life imprisonment.
The Court pointed out that when persons who served less term can be released then what is problem of Centre in releasing Perarivalan.
Justice Rao observed that if Governor didn’t agree with Cabinet then only thing is he can sent back to cabinet but in no scenario he can forward it to President.
“Under what Provision in the Constitution has the governor referred the case to the President? What is the source of such a power which allows him to refer the matter to the President? Governor has to act on the aid and advice of the State Cabinet, if you read Article 161 carefully, you will find that the governor has to exercise his powers independently,” the bench said.
“Can the Governor refer the matter to the President? Does the governor have the power to refer the decision of the executive to the President? That is the question. What you are arguing has wider ramifications. Therefore, you take proper instructions and we will pass the orders,” the bench told Nataraj.
“Governor has to act with the aid and advice of the State Cabinet. The personal satisfaction of the Governor is of no good while deciding the mercy Petitions under Article 161, he is bound by the decision of the State Government”, he said.
The matter heard because Centre had questioned State Government’s power under Article 161 of Constitution as convicted had taken benefit of Remission of Punishment from Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment.