SWARAN SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 206 · Decided: 05-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SWARAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
\.. I 
MARCH 5, 1998 
B 
[M.M PUNCHHJ CJ., K.T. THOMAS AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 161-Power of Governor to grant 
remission of punishment-Conviction for murder-Accused sentenced to 
c 
imprisonment for life-Remission petition to Governor-Concealment of 
material facts-Remission granted-Held, Governor not posted with material 
facts-Deprived of opportunity to exercise power in fair and just mannel'-
Remission order quashed-Remission petition to be considered afresh. 
Judicial review-Orders passed by Governor under Article of 161 of 
D the Constitution of India-Held, is subject to judicial review if the powers are 
exercised arbitrarily mala fide or in absolute disregard to Constitutionalism. 
The third respondent an M. L.A. of U.P. Assembly was convicted and 
sentenced to imprisonment for life, for murdering one 'J'. He was also 
accused in five other criminal cases of serious nature. The appeal against 
E his conviction was dismissed by both the High Court and this Court. The 
third respondent made a pardon/remission petition before the Governor. His 
earlier remission petition was dismissed by the same Governor. This fact 
was not brought to the notice of the Governor while deciding the second 
remission petition. The Governor in exercise of his powers under Article 
F 
161 of the Constitution of India, 1950 granted remission of the remaining 
period of sentence. The appellant, son of the deceased 'J' challenged the 
\ 
action of the Governor before the High Court, which dismissed the petition 
on the ground that a decision of the Governor under Article 161 of the 
Constitution was not justiciable. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. An order of the Governor under Article 161 of the 
Constitution of India, 1950 is subject to judicial review within the strict 
parameters laid down in Maru Ram,* case and reiterated in Kehar Singh,** 
case. If the power under Article 161 of the Constitution was exercised by the 
H Governor arbitrarily, mala fide or in absolute disregard of the finer canons 
206 
SW ARAN SINGH v. STA TE [THOMAS, J.] 
207 
of the constitutionalism, the by...prodtlct order cannm get the approval oflaw A 
and in such cases, the jucidcal hand must be stretched to it. 1211-C] 
* Maru Ram v. VO/ & Ors., [198111 SCC 107 and Kehar Singh & Anr. 
v. VO/ & Anr., [198911 SCC 204, followed. 
1.2. In the present case, the Governor was not posted with material B 
facts such as the involvement of the third respondent in five other criminal 
cases of serious nature, the rejection of his earlier clemency petition filed 
on the same grounds and that out of two years and five months jail, he was 
on parole during substantial part of it. Thus, the Gllvernor was apparently 
deprived of tile opportunity to exercise the powers in a fair and just manner. C 
(210-C; 211-DI 
1.3. In the circumstances the order passed by the Co¥ernor is quashed 
to enable him to pass a fresh order. The GoverllDt" shall consider the petition 
of third respondent in the light of relevant material whtch were not brought 
to his notice earlier. 1211-FI 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5962 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated I I.I 1.92 of the l\llahabad High 
Court in W. P. No. 8848of1991. 
E 
Rajiv Grag for N.D. Garg, A.S. Pundir, Vishwajit Singh Bahur U. Barqui, 
Z.K. Faizan and P.K. Jain for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THOMAS, J. Shri Doodh Nath, third respondent in this appeal, was 
found guilty of murdering !me Joginder Singh. He was convicted and sentenced 
to imprisonment for life along with some other persons who too were involved 
ill the same offence. His appeal to the High Court and Special Leave petition 
F 
to this Court did not give any help to extricate himself from the penal clutches G 
of the offence. But within a period of less than two years, he succeeded in 
escaping from prison as the Governor of Uttar Pradesh granted remission of 
the remaining long period of his life sentence. That step of the Constitutional 
functionary was far beyond the tolerance capacity of the bereaved members 
of the family of deceased Joginder Singh and hence his son (the present 
appellant) moved the Allahabad High Court challenging the aforesaid action H 
208 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A of the Governor. A division bench of the High Court, which heard his w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.