SATPAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 858 · Decided: 01-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SATPAL AND ANR. 
~ • 
v. 
STAIB OF.HARYANA AND ORS. 
MAY 1, 2000 
VI-
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Constitution of lndia,"-1950-Articles 161 and 32. 
~ 
Governor's power to grant pardon or remission of sentence--Conviction 
c 
and sentence for murder-Direction for surrender-Remission petition made 
without surrendering to custody-Govemor not posted with relevant materials 
regarding period of sentence undergone by accused and his conduct in prison-
Order granting remission passed-Validity of-Held, order has been passed 
without application of mind and with undue haste-Thus, order vitiated and 
>-
quashed. 
D 
Governor's power to grant pardon or remission-Judicial review-Scope 
of-Held, can be interfered with if the power is exercised without seeking advise 
from the Government or passed without application of mind or for some 
extraneous consideration. 
E 
~ 
~ 
Respondent 'S' and four other persons belonging to a political party 
were prosecuted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 
120-B as well as under Sections 392, 148, 452 and 323 IPC. Trial Court 
convicted all. the accused persons and on appeal High Court, while main-
F 
taining the conviction of two accused persons, acquitted accused 'S' and 
two others. On appeal, this court set aside the acquittal of accused 'S' and 
-f 
another person and directed them to surrender to the custody for serving 
the remaining sentence. However, accused 'S' instead of surrendering filed 
an application for grant of pardon before the Governor under Article 161, 
G 
which was allowed. Hence the present writ petition. 
On behalf of appellants, it was contended that the order passed by 
the Governor without application of mind and in a hasty manner cannot 
.>-
sustain judicial scrutiny and must be set aside; the Governor has passed 
the order without being aided and advised by the Council of Ministers and 
H 
therefore the Order is vitiated. 
858 
~-
• 
SATPAL v. STATE 
859 
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the power to 
A 
grant pardon and remission of sentence is essentially an executive function 
to be exercised by the Head of the State after taking into consideration 
various matters and the Court is precluded from examining the wisdom or 
expediency of exercise of the said power. 
Allowing the writ petition, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Governor had not applied his mind to the material 
on record and has mechanically passed an order just to allow the prisoner 
to overcome conviction and sentence by this Court. Thus, the order of 
remission passed under Article 161 of the Constitution is quashed. [864-F] 
1.2. When an accused is convicted for heinous offence of murder and 
is sentenced to imprisonment of life the authority who has been conferred 
with power to grant pardon and remission of sentence under Article 161 of 
the Constitution must be made aware of the period of sentence in fact 
undergone by the sitid convict as well as his conduct and behaviour while 
he has been undergoing the sentence which would be all germane consid-
erations for exercise of the power. Not being aware of such material facts 
would tend to make.an order of granting pardon arbitrary and irrational. 
However, in the instant case, Governor has not been made aware of as to 
what is the total period of sentence the accused has really undergone and if 
at all has undergone any sentence. The Order passed by the Governor 
clearly indicates that he was pleased to grant pardon remitting the un-
expired portion of the sentence passed on the accused 'S' confined in the 
Central Jail. But the said prisoner was not confined in the Central Jail on 
that date and on the other hand only after obtaining the order of pardon 
and remission of sentence to give an appearance of compliance to the order 
of this Court, he surrendered before the Sessions Court and also was 
released on the very same day in view of the order of the Governor. Thus it 
is apparent that the Government has not been advised properly with all 
the relevant materials. [865-B-A; 864-G] 
2. The power of granting pardon under Article 161 is very wide and 
do not contain any limitation as to the time on which and the occasion oil 
which and the circuDt"stances in which the said powers could be exercised. 
But the said power being a constitutional power conferred upon the Gov-
ernor by the constitution is amenable to judicial review on certain limited 
grounds. The Court, therefore, would be ju

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.