LexUNION OF INDIA versus V. SRIHARAN @ MURUGAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c ·· [2014] 5 S.C.R. 724 UNION OF INDIA v. V. SRIHARAN @ MURUGAN & ORS. (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 48 of 2014 etc.) APRIL 25, 2014 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Art. 32 and Arts. 72 and 161 rlw Art. 145(3) - Death sentence commuted by Supreme Court - Decision of State Government to grant remission to seven accused of Rajiv Gandhi assassin§ltion case - Letter by State Government to 0 Central Government in that regard - Writ petition by Central Government seeking to quash the said letter - Issues regarding meaning of 'imprisonment for life', power of executives, both the Centre and the State, to grant remission, consideration for remission by executive once power of remission under Arts. 72, 161 or under Art. 32 has been E exercised; 'appropriate Government' uls 432(2) CrPC to exercise power of remission, etc. - Referred for consideration of Constitution Bench - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 45 and 53 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.432 and 435. F After the judgment dated 18-2-2014 passed by the Supreme Court in V. Sriharan's case 1 commuting the death sentence of three accused into imprisonment for life, the Govt. of Tamilnadu took a decision to grant remission to seven accused in Rajiv Gandhi G assassination case and, accordingly, sent a letter dated 19.2.2014 to the Union Govt. proposing to remit the H 1. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. 2014 (2) SCALE 505. 724 UNION OF INDIA v. V. SRIHARAN @ MURUGAN 725 sentence of life imprisonment and to release the said A seven accused persons. The Union of India filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 48 of 2014 seeking to quash the letter dated 19.2.2014 issued by the Govt. of Tamilnadu. Writ Petition (Crl.) no. 105 of 2008 was filed by respondent no. 6 in Writ Petition (Crl) No. 48 of 2014 seeking to quash B G.O. No. 873 dated 14.09.2006, G.O. No. 671 dated 10.05.2007 and G.O. (D) No. 891 dated 18.07.2007 issued by the State of Tamil Nadu. Crl. M.P Nos. 4622-24 of 2014 were filed by the Union of India seeking to restrain the State Govt. from passing any order of remission and c releasing the convicts from prison. Since in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 105 of 2008, the petitioner was one of the respondents (respondent No. 6) in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 48 of 2014 and Writ Petition (Crl.} No. 105 of 2008 was not pressed, the Court dismissed the same as not pressed. 0 Likewise, Crl. M.P. Nos. 4622, 4623 and 4624 of 2014 in T.C.(Crl.) Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 2012 respectively were also dismissed. Referring the issues arising in WP (Crl.) no. 48 of 2014 to the Constitution Bench, the Court E HELD: 1.1. The commutation of death penalty to life imprisonment can befall at two stages: firstly, when the appellate court deems it fit to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. The primary question that F arises for consideration at this juncture is whether the Court has the power to substitute the death penalty for imprisonment for life (meaning until end of life) and put this category beyond the application of remission. [para 36,37 and 42] [747-H; 748-A,B-C] G Swamy Shraddananda vs. State of Karnataka, 2008 (11) SCR 93 = (2008) 13 SCC 767; Bhagirath vs. Delhi Administration 1985 (~) SCR 7 43 = (1985) 2 SCC 580 - referred to. H 726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R. A 1.2. The second stage is when the executive exercises its remission power under Art. 72 of the Constitution of India by the President or under Art. 161 by the Governor or under Arts. 32 by this Court in ~ts judicial review jurisdiction and the commutation of death B penalty into life imprisonment is permitted. The issue in this regard is whether once power of remission under Arts. 72 or 161 or by this Court exercising Constitutional power under Art. 32 is exercised, is there any scope for further consideration for remission by th.e executive. The c issue of such a nature has been raised for the first time in this Court, which has wide ramification in determining the scope of application of power of remission by the executives - both the Centre and the State. [para 43 ·and 45] [751-C; 752-B-C] D 1.3. Inasmuch as the issue vis-a-vis who is the 'appropriate Government' u/s 432(7) of the Code to exercise the power of remission is -concerned, and whether there can be two a·ppropriate Governments in one case, further whether the term "consultation" means
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.