Governor’s Role In Premature Release Of Convicts: Madras High Court Refers Question To Larger Bench Amid Conflicting Views
The High Court noted conflicting Division Bench rulings on whether the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers in matters of remission and premature release.
The Madras High Court has referred to a Larger Bench the question of whether the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers when deciding on remission and premature release of convicts, or whether discretion can be exercised in such cases.
The Court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by life convicts challenging the rejection of their premature release proposals by the Governor despite recommendations made at the highest levels of the State Government. The petitioners contended that the Council’s advice is binding on the Governor.
A Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan noted the existence of a contrary ruling by another Division Bench of the Madurai Bench in Murugan @ Thirumalai Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2024), which had held that the Governor may exercise discretion and reject proposals where the Council of Ministers had not considered relevant factors. That ruling had relied upon the Constitution Bench decision in M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. (2004).
The Bench observed that there appeared to be a conflict between the views taken by the two Division Benches. As a Bench of equal strength, it could not ignore the judgment passed by another Division Bench. The Bench, therefore, held that a Larger Bench of the High Court needed to resolve the issue.
The Court directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice so that an appropriate Larger Bench could be constituted to decide whether the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers in matters relating to remission and premature release, and under what circumstances the Governor may take a view different from that of the Council.
Cause Title: Eswaran v. State, Home Secretary (Prison-IV), Home Department & Ors.
Appearances
Petitioners: Advocate M. Mohamed Saifulla, Advocate S. Manoharan, Advocate S. Nadhiya, Advocate R. Sankarasubbu, Advocate P. Pugalenthi
Respondents: Advocate E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor