In a judgment that binds the Governor to ensure that the State government does not commute sentence of life convicts contrary to the law, the Karnataka High Court on Friday said that approval granted by the Governor for release of 285 convicts, sentenced for life, on August 15, 2006 was bad in law.
“If the Government advice to the Governor to commute sentence is contrary to the Parliamentary mandate, the Governor is not obliged to mechanically give effect to such advice of the Government and exercise pardon,” Justice N. Kumar said in his verdict.
The verdict was on a petition filed by Ramakrishna of Mandya. He had challenged release of Manjunath, who was convicted for murdering petitioner's father in 1998.
The State government released 309 convicts on Independence Day on the occasion of Suvarna Karnataka Year celebration in 2006. Of these, 285 convicts, who were sentenced to life, had served only eight years in prison. The court, while setting aside commutation of Manjunath's sentence, directed the Home Secretary to arrest him without warrant and remand him to undergo remaining sentence.
However, in case of the 284 convicts, the court advised the Governor and the State government to exercise their power to cancel pardon in public interest so that the message would be loud and clear that in future, such commutation of sentence contrary to law would not benefit convicts. “The Governor, before exercising power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution is duty bound to apply his mind to the advice, and bring it to the notice of the Government the violations of statutory provisions,” the court said.
Pointing out that as per Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State government has the power to commute the sentence of life convicts only after they serve a minimum of 14 years of imprisonment, the High Court said that the Government had recommended to the Governor to pardon the life convicts who had served only eight years.
“Exercise of executive clemency is not a matter of privilege. It is vested with the President and the Governor not for the benefit of the convict only, but for the welfare of the people. What they [Government] cannot do under the Statute, they cannot advice the President or the Governor to do, and this get over the limitation imposed on them by the Parliament,” Justice Kumar said pointing out that “law cannot be compromised on the grounds of political expediency.”
The official records and the Governor's order clearly demonstrate that there is no application of mind, and the order was passed on “extraneous or irrelevant considerations”. The court noticed that the Governor, while approving the advice of the Government for release of these convicts, had presumed that the Government followed the law and the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court
