In a blow to the Tamil Nadu Government's attempts to release the killers of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that States cannot unilaterally release criminals from jail without obtaining consent from the Centre, if the conviction is under Central laws.
The landmark decision by a Constitution Bench came on an appeal by the Centre which objected to the Tamil Nadu Government's February 19, 2014 order to release all the seven convicts without getting the go-ahead from the Centre. While the SC Bench did not deal with the merits of the State Government's decision and referred the matter to a three-judge Bench, it said that any move to release prisoners convicted for crimes will essentially require the nod of the Central Government, provided the case was investigated by a central agency or it involved a Central law.
The significant decision also held that in heinous offences punishable with life sentence, convicts can be slapped with a term extending beyond 14 years during which period they cannot be released on remission. This part of the judgement was supported by only three judges as two opposed it suggesting "any order putting punishment beyond remission will prohibit the statutory scheme provided under Sections 432 and 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( CrPC)".
Tamil Nadu’s order of February 19, 2014 had followed a decision by the SC commuting the death penalty of the three convicts, Santhan, Murugan, and Perarivalan. The Centre maintained that it was the "appropriate Government" under Section 432 of the CrPC as it was a case investigated by the CBI and involved provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The State Government maintained that the crime occurred in its territorial jurisdiction and hence consultation with the Centre was not a necessary step for issuing the remission order. The State further maintained that convicts need a ray of hope but the Centre was firm that the act involved the murder of a former PM, which is a "diabolical" act of terror.
The five-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Hl Dattu, Justices FM Ibrahim Kalifulla, PC Ghose, UU lalit and AM Sapre held that life sentence means imprisonment for entire life. During this period the exercise of remission power under the CrPC Sections 432 and 433 by the "appropriate Government" will mean the Central Government in cases investigated by the central agency or cases involving provisions under a Parliament-enacted law. It held that the Centre will have primacy over States even if both have concurrent jurisdiction.
In any case, a State cannot suo motu initiate remission for any prisoner and in no event can the Centre be bypassed by the State as the word "consultation" occurring in Section 435(1) of the CrPC will mean "concurrence". During the period of incarceration, the grant of pardon by President/Governor under Articles 72/161 will be available.
On the "special category" of sentencing, three judges --- CJI, Justices Kalifulla and Ghose --- agreed with an earlier view of the court laid down in Swamy Shradhanand case (2008) and said that "a special category of sentence instead of death can be substituted by the punishment of imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 14 years."
To put such a category "beyond application of remission is well founded," said Justice Kalifulla, who authored the majority view.
The Bench was obviously mindful of the reality in society where hardened criminals enjoyed support of highly-placed persons. "If any further leniency is shown in the matter of imposition of sentence it will only lead to further chaos and there will be no rule of law but only anarchy will rule the country enabling criminals and their gangs to dictate terms," the majority view held.