CHENNAI: In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court on Thursday held that in matters relating to remission and premature release of convict prisoners, the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers (CoM).
A Full Bench comprising Justices AD Jagdish Chandra, GK Illanthiraiyan and Sunder Mohan gave the ruling while answering the reference made by a Division Bench last year.
When the Division Bench had taken up Eswaran vs State of Tamil Nadu and eight other cases, the petitioners' counsel submitted that their case for premature release had been considered by the State Cabinet and the release was recommended at the highest level of the State, but was rejected by the Governor. Relying upon the Supreme Court's ruling in the AG Perarivalan case, he argued that the advice of the Council of Ministers binds the Governor.
Meanwhile, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the ruling of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that the Governor could exercise his discretion and reject a proposal for premature release if the Council of Ministers had not considered the relevant factors.
Taking note of conflicting views, the Division Bench thought it fit to refer the matter to a larger bench and framed questions on two issues relating to whether the Governor was bound by the advice given by the Council of Ministers in matters relating to remission and premature release and if he was bound, under what circumstances does the Governor have the discretion to take a view different from that taken by the Council of Ministers.
The Full Bench observed that the position of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Maru Ram Vs Union of India case, wherein it was categorically held that the Governor is a formal head and is incapable of acting except on and in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers, regardless of the Governor's personal preference.
The Court also held that the decision of the Madurai Bench, which had relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, was a decision made through ignorance.
The Court noted that in the MP Special Police Establishment case, the question of law was whether the Governor could act in his discretion in the matter of granting sanction to prosecute Ministers for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act or under the IPC.
The Court noted that in such circumstances, the Constitution Bench had held that when there was apparent bias by the CoM, or when its decision was irrational and based on non-consideration of relevant factors, the Governor could act on his own discretion and grant sanction.
Observing that no conflict was found between the ratios laid down in the AG Perarivalan case and MP Special Police Establishment Vs State of MP case, the Full Bench clarified that the Governor is bound by the decision of the CoM, consistent with the Maru Ram Vs Union of India case, which the AG Perarivalan case relied upon.
In its order, answering both the issues under reference cumulatively, the Full Bench held that while exercising powers under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution in matters of remission and premature release of convict prisoners, the Governor is bound by the advice given by the Council of Ministers, regardless of his personal preference and under no circumstance can the Governor exercise discretion to take a different view from the one taken by the Council of Ministers.