The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the release of all life convict prisoners in cases investigated by the CBI awaiting response from States on the question whether remission can be given by States suo moto or without the concurrence of the Centre.
The order was passed by a Constitution bench of five judges on an appeal filed by the Centre against the proposed move by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa to release all seven convicts in the assassination case of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
The bench of Chief Justice RM lodha, Justices JS Khehar, J Chelameswar, AK Sikri and Rohington Nariman directed all States to respond by July 22. Earlier, a three-judge bench which heard the appeal of the Centre, had stayed the release of the Rajiv Gandhi killers while referring seven questions of law to the Constitution Bench. The five judge bench maintained this order while directing that till disposal of this case, no life convict serving imprisonment in CBI investigated cases be released.
The Constitution Bench also asked Solicitor General Ranjeet Kumar who presented the Centre’s appeal to justify how it was aggrieved by the State’s action to file a petition under Article 32 of Constitution.
The most crucial question that the Constitution Bench has to determine will be whether it is the State or Centre that will have primacy in matters of grant of remission to life convict prisoners. Although Section 432 speaks of “appropriate Government”, confusion arose in the case of Rajiv Gandhi killers as the Jayalalithaa Government had suo moto initiated the process of releasing the prisoners to which the Centre objected as the case was investigated by CBI.
The other questions of law included whether remission power can be exercised by the executive after the President or the Supreme Court has given a final view with regard to their punishment by way of mercy petition or an independent writ petition filed in Court. The five-judge bench will also decide whether both state and Centre can equally have power to grant remission in a case where the prisoner is sentenced to offences falling under State Act and Central Act.
Section 435(1) of CrPC provides States to consult Centre before acting on grant of remission. On this aspect, the three-judge bench framed a question whether the word “consultation” meant “concurrence”. The five-judge bench also asked States to respond on the policy of sentencing by Courts. Of late, Courts while substituting life term with death penalty sentence him/her to remain in jail for a fixed period during which the executive Government is restrained from exercising its power of remission.