The High Court dismissed this writ petition filed by a life convict seeking release under G.O. 64. It held that power to act under Article 161 is sovereign and discretionary with the Governor, so mandamus cannot compel such consideration.
Writ petition dismissed without costs; connected W.M.P. closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 05.04.2022 PRONOUNCED ON: 19.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
W.P. No.5292 of 2021 & W.M.P. No.5852 of 2021
G. Thangavelu @ Velu ...Petitioner
vs.
1 The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat Chennai 600 009
2 The Director General of Prisons & I.G. of Prisons Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore Chennai 600 008 3 The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison Salem – 7 ...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 06.09.2019 of the petitioner's wife and release the petitioner immediately under G.O. (Ms.) No.64, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 01.02.2018.
For petitioner Mr. P. Pugalenthi
For respondents Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah assisted by Mr. R. Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
The petitioner's wife Rajamani addressed a representation dated 06.09.2019 seeking a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner prematurely under G.O. (Ms.) No.64, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 01.02.2018 (for short “G.O. 64”) and finding no response, the petitioner himself has followed it up by filing the instant writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his wife's representation dated 06.09.2019 and release him immediately under G.O. 64.
2 In response to the averments in the petitioner's affidavit, the Joint Secretary and Under Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, has filed a counter affidavit dated 30.11.2021 wherein at paragraph 3, he has stated the various cases in which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced and the said particulars are reproduced hereunder:
| Cr. No. & Police Station |
Court & Sessions Case No. |
Section under which convicted |
Period of imprisonment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nattrampalli P.S.Cr. No.240/1987 |
Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore S.C. No.42/1989 |
S.302 IPC S.396 (2 counts) S.395 IPC |
Life imprisonment Life imprisonment R.I. for 5 years (all sentences to run concurrently) |
| Adhiyamankottai P.S.Cr.No.47/19 98 |
Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri S.C. No.187/1998 |
S.324 IPC |
R.I. for 6 months |
| Thoppur P.S. Cr.No.101/1995 |
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri S.C.No.114/1995 |
S.224 IPC | S.I. for 13 months and fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month |
3 Be that as it may, to commemorate the Birth Centenary of Dr.M.G. Ramachandran, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.64 for premature release of convict prisoners fixing several eligibility criteria for consideration of their cases for premature release by the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. In the said G.O., the cut-off date was fixed as 25.02.2018. In other words, the cases of convict prisoners, who satisfied the eligibility criteria prescribed therein as on 25.02.2018, were sent to the Governor via the Cabinet, for consideration under Article 161, ibid. It is reported that under G.O.64, the Governor, in exercise of powers under Article 161, ibid., based on the aid and advice of the Cabinet, ordered the release of 1,650 convict prisoners.
4 It is to be pointed out that G.O.64 envisages constitution of two Committees, viz. District Level Committee and State Level Committee for considering the cases of convict prisoners and recommending their premature release to the Government. The counter affidavit states that the case of the petitioner was not recommended by the District Level Committee as well the State Level Committee for the following reasons:
| 2 | 27.07.1993 | Made amon them indu |
er g pris from stries |
roneous oners and working |
propaganda prevented in prison |
Forfeiture of 20 days remission |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 04.08.1993 | He spre amon pris |
was ading g pris on off |
again in erroneous oners and icials |
volved in propaganda abused the |
Forfeiture of 20 days remission |
| 4 | 18.08.1994 | He invo not the |
along lved i obeyed prison |
with 33 n hunger the inst officials |
prisoners strike and ruction of |
Forfeiture of 10 days remission |
| 5 | 27.01.1999 When released on emergency Case registered |
|---|---|
| leave for 6 days, did not return to prison on expiry of leave and absconded. He was arrested in another case on 08.01.1999 after 4 years. under Section 224 IPC |
|
| 6 | 18.11.2008 He along with other prisoners, made demands beyond prison rules and did not take food. They demanded raw rations instead of cooked food and allow them to cook separately. This created an embarrassing situation in the prison. 20 days forfeiture of remission |
| 7 | 19.11.2008 He along with other prisoners protested by not taking food and demanded the raw ration. Severely warned and recommended for prison transfer. |
| 8 | 07.07.2014 One Nokia cell phone and battery hidden between 2 books was seized from him. Temporary cancellation of all prison privileges for 4 months and interview was cancelled for two months. Complaint was also registered in the local police station. |
| 5 Be it noted, one of the conditions stipulated in |
|
| G.O.64 When th was rig |
is that the prisoner's behaviour should be satisfactory. e petitioner has such a notorious track record, his case htly not recommended by the District and State Level |
Committ opinion |
ees to the Government for premature release. In our , a mandamus cannot be issued to the Governor to consider |
| a conv Article under A vested |
ict prisoner's representation and pass orders under 161 of the Constitution of India, because, the power rticle 161, ibid., is a sovereign and discretionary one with the Governor who himself can exercise it only on the |
| aid and represe land an |
advice of the Cabinet. This cannot be like giving a ntation to the Tahsildar for issuance of a patta for a d thereafter, filing a writ petition seeking a mandamus |
| to the | Tahsildar to consider the representation and pass orders. |
6 When an accused is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the judiciary, he has to undergo the sentence upto the end of his natural life (See Maru Ram vs. Union of India and others [(1981) 1 SCC 107]. After having
sentenced an accused to imprisonment for life, the judiciary does not have the power to remit his sentence as that power vests only with the executive under Article 72/161 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, even if the two Committees recommend to the Government for premature release of a convict prisoner, the Government is not bound by the said recommendation. A Constitutional Court can only judicially review the order of the Governor passed under Article 161, ibid., within certain parameters set out in the various judgments of the Supreme Court, but, cannot issue a writ of mandamus to the Cabinet or the Governor to consider the representation and pass orders under Article 161, ibid. In the instant case, the reasons given by the two Committees for not recommending the petitioner's case to the Government for premature release under G.O. 64 cannot be said to be perverse. In such perspective of the matter, we find no merit in this writ petition.
As a sequitur, this writ petition stands dismissed, however, sans costs. Connected W.M.P. stands closed.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
cad To
W.P. No.5292 of 2021
NR(CO) SP(26/04/2022)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the Governor to consider a prisoner's representation for premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution.
Whether the Government is bound by the recommendations of District and State Level Committees regarding premature release of convicts under G.O. 64.
Whether the writ petition challenging non-recommendation of the petitioner's case for premature release deserves to be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Maru Ram vs. Union of IndiaExplained¶28
Maru Ram vs. Union of India and others [(1981) 1 SCC 107] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
G. Thangavelu @ Velu
State of Tamil Nadu
P.N. Prakash
A.A. Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
