The Supreme Court has exercised its extraordinary power To order the release of AG PerarivalanOne of the seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, for whose freedom his mother made many Political parties And vast sections of public opinion have been campaigning for years. Suicide attack that killed Rajiv Gandhi, along with 15 others, including nine police personnel on “Tamil soil”, caused much outrage in the state, but the sentiment subsided with the passage of time. Perarivalan garnered much public sympathy, mainly due to the fact that he was only 19 years old when he was embroiled in a murder conspiracy and later revelations that a portion of his confessional statement had been charged with battery by a police officer. Improvements were made to add purchases. The belt used in the suicide bombing was used in the bomb. But essentially, the three-member bench’s decision is an indictment of contravention of federal norms, presented by the Raj Bhavan along with the cabinet’s advice to release them in 2018. According to the arguments of the central government, one can understand. That it was the guiding hand of the Center that was responsible for the delay. The then Governor sent the advice of the cabinet to the President for decision. The Center also argued that cases involving murder under the IPC fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the President in matters punishable with life imprisonment. The Court has removed all doubts by holding that the Governor is bound by the advice of the State Cabinet while acting under Article 161 of the Constitution, that his reference to the President was “prejudicial to the plan of the Constitution” and that the exemption remained. The matter is firmly in the jurisdiction of the State.
Even when a Constitution Bench, while addressing legal questions on the statutory power of exemption under the CrPC, held that the release of these convicts would require the consent of the Centre, it had made it clear that the constitutional powers of the President (Article 72) and the Governor (Article 161) “remain untouched”. In light of this, and the position that the powers of exemption are exercised solely on the advice of the cabinet, the state’s recommendation for his release to the governor in 2018 was undeterred. While the bench has done a good job of allaying doubts about the power of the Governor’s exemption and the manner in which it is exercised, an important point remains. Nothing has been said on what should be done when executive decisions are exploited indefinitely in the absence of a deadline for the President or Governor. It is impracticable to escalate each case to such an extent that the Supreme Court is required to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142. However, the judgment should not be seen as an endorsement of the claims of innocence of the convicts in the dastardly conspiracy. And whether governments should recommend exemptions based on public opinion is a question to consider.