CHENNAI: It is the State government that can decide on remission of punishment of a prisoner, not by the Governor on his own, held the Madras High Court while rejecting the Governor's disapproval to grant remission to a life convict.

A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam said it was not convinced by the decision taken by Governor RN Ravi in disapproving the Tamil Nadu government’s recommendation to prematurely release a life convict, who has spent 20 years in jail. The court then sent the matter to the government to take a final call expeditiously.

Citing Article 161 of the Constitution, the bench held that the advice of appropriate government binds the head of the State.

The bench pronounced the order while allowing a petition moved by Veera Bharathi, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting and murdering a minor girl, and was sentenced to life in prison.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel R Sankara Subbu submitted that Veera Bharathi was eligible to be considered for premature release because he has been in prison for 20 years. As the State government has already released the co-accused in the case, the benefit should be extended to the petitioner, too, he said, adding that it would be an instance of discrimination if that was not done.

State Public Prosecutor (PP) Hasan Mohammed Jinnah submitted that under the remission scheme, the State Committee recommended the petitioner for premature release. It was approved by the Chief Minister and the State Cabinet. When the recommendation was forwarded to the Governor Ravi for consideration, he denied it stating that the petitioner deserved no merit for consideration since he is a paedophile, who raped and killed a minor girl, submitted the PP.

"It would be insufficient to reject an application for premature release merely on the ground that the offence committed is heinous in nature," wrote the bench. The court also considered that the death penalty imposed on the petitioner by the trial court was reduced to life conviction by the High Court. He was eligible for the grant of remission, said the bench, adding that the Governor's disapproval was irrelevant.