Chennai, April 3 -- The Madras High Court has ruled that a State Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while deciding on remission and premature release of convicted prisoners under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, making it clear that the Governor cannot independently reject such recommendations.
The judgment was delivered on Thursday by a full bench comprising Justices A D Jagdish Chandra, G K Illanthiraiyan and Sunder Mohan in response to a reference made by a division bench that had encountered conflicting interpretations in earlier rulings. The court was examining a batch of petitions, including the Eswaran case, where life convicts challenged the rejection or inaction on their premature release despite favourable recommendations from the State Cabinet.
Petitioners argued that once the Cabinet had taken a decision recommending remission, the Governor had no authority to override it. They contended that such rejections were legally unsustainable. The issue arose after divergent views were expressed in earlier cases, including Veera Bharathi and Murugan alias Thirumalai Murugan, prompting the need for an authoritative ruling.
Framing the central question, the full bench examined whether the Governor is bound by ministerial advice in such cases and, if so, whether any discretion exists to depart from it. Answering both aspects, the Court held that the constitutional position is clear and leaves no ambiguity.
"The Hon'ble Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers regardless of whether the Hon'ble Governor likes that advice or not and under no circumstance can exercise discretion to take a different view," the bench stated, reinforcing that remission powers exercised under Article 161 are not discretionary in nature when Cabinet advice is available.
The court relied on key Supreme Court precedents, including Maru Ram v. Union of India and AG Perarivalan v. State of Tamil Nadu, which establish that the Governor acts as a constitutional head and must function in accordance with the elected government's advice. It noted that the Perarivalan ruling reaffirmed principles laid down in Maru Ram, which held that the Governor, though vested with executive power, cannot act independently of the Council of Ministers.
During the proceedings, State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah highlighted the legal background, pointing out that earlier judgments had taken differing approaches. While one line of cases followed the binding nature of Cabinet advice, another relied on the Constitution bench decision in MP Special Police Establishment v. State of MP to argue that the Governor could act independently in certain situations involving bias or irrationality.
However, the bench rejected this argument, clarifying that the MP Special Police Establishment case dealt with a distinct statutory function concerning sanction for prosecution under criminal law, and not the exercise of constitutional powers under Article 161. It held that the reasoning in that case could not be extended to remission decisions.
The bench further observed that if a Cabinet decision is alleged to be arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations, the appropriate remedy lies in judicial review by constitutional courts, as recognised in Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh. It stressed that such scrutiny cannot be undertaken by the Governor acting independently.
"This Court finds that the ruling in Perarivalan has merely reiterated the position of law laid down in Maru Ram, and therefore, it is well settled that the Governor is bound by the advice given by the Council of Ministers in matters relating to remission and premature release," the bench said.
The ruling settles the legal position on the extent of the Governor's powers in remission cases, affirming that no independent discretion exists once the Council of Ministers has made its recommendation. It also clarifies that any dispute over such decisions must be resolved through judicial processes rather than executive intervention.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.