You may have a look at the following decisions-

1.Maru Ram Etc. Etc vs Union Of Lndia & Anr on 11 November, 1980

Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 2147, 1981 SCR (1)1196

2.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.454 OF 2006

Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra ... Appellant

Vs.

State of Karnataka ... Respondent

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 48 OF 2014

Union of India .... Petitioner(s)

Versus

V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. .... Respondent(s)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 105 OF 2008

CRL. M.P. NO.4622 OF 2014 IN T.C. (CRL.) NO.1 OF 2012

CRL. M.P. NO. 4623 OF 2014 IN T.C. (CRL.) NO. 2 OF 2012

CRL. M.P. NO. 4624 OF 2014 IN T.C. (CRL.) NO. 3 OF 2012

J UDGM ENT

P. Sathasivam, CJI.

Wri t Peti t io n (Crl.) No. 48 of 2014

This writ petition, under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India, has been filed by the Union of India

praying for quashing of letter dated 19.02.2014, issued by

1

the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu to the

Secretary, Government of India wherein the State of Tamil

Nadu proposes to remit the sentence of life imprisonment

and to release Respondent Nos. 1-7 herein who were

convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case in

pursuance of commutation of death sentence of Respondent

Nos. 1-3 herein by this Court on 18.02.2014 in Transferred

Case Nos. 1-3 of 2012 titled V. Sri h a r a n @ Murugan &

Ors. vs. Union of Ind i a & Ors. 2014 (2) SCALE 505.

Wri t Peti t io n (Crl.) No. 105 of 2008

please provide judgment of the court then I can give proper advice and case law.

Order passed by government under art 161 is amenable to writ jurisdiction, The Supreme Court in Narayan Dutt & Ors. v State of Punjab, has examined the scope and powers of a State Governor to pardon an accused under Article 161 of the Constitution.

In Maru Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 1980 SC 2147] Krishna Iyer J, speaking for the Constitution Bench, held that although the power under Articles 72 and 161 were very wide, it could not "run riot". His Lordship held that no legal power can run unruly like John Gilpin on the horse, but "must keep sensibly to a steady course". According to His Lordship, "all public power, including constitutional power, shall never be exercisable arbitrarily or mala fide and, ordinarily, guidelines for fair and equal execution are guarantors of the valid play of power." (para 62 at p. 2170)

you can contact me for further details on this law point.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 48 OF 2014

Union of India .... Petitioner(s)

Versus

V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. .... Respondent(s)

Supreme Court in Narayan Dutt & Ors. v State of Punjab, has examined the scope and powers of a State Governor to pardon an accused under Article 161 of the Constitution.

In Maru Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 1980 SC 2147] Krishna Iyer J, speaking for the Constitution Bench, held that although the power under Articles 72 and 161 were very wide, it could not "run riot.

In what could be termed as a major blow to the State Government, the Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed in entirety the Code of Criminal Procedure (Direction for Suspension of Sentence) Rules 2007 relating to remission of sentences of life convicts.

A Division Bench comprising Justice S.R. Bannurmath and Justice A.N. Venugopala Gowda passed the orders on criminal petitions by Mamatha and Nagaratna alias Ratna, two life convicts, who wanted to withdraw the appeals filed by them against lower court orders.

When the appellants had filed their applications for withdrawal of their cases, the Bench had asked the State Public Prosecutor (SPP) to inquire into the issue. The SPP reported back to the court that several women life convicts wanted to file memos withdrawing their appeal against their conviction and sentence.

The SPP subsequently told the Bench that the women wanted to withdraw their appeals as they had been told by some non-governmental organisations and fellow inmates that they would get remission from the State if they withdrew the appeal.

The SPP and Home Department then informed the Bench that life convicts would get remission under the rules framed by the State Government called Direction for Suspension of Sentence, Rules 2007. Under the rules, women convicts who had put in five years in jail and men who were in jail for seven years were eligible for remission.

The Bench then decided to go into the issue of remission and the powers of the judiciary and the Government. The Bench took cognisance of reports of the Minister for Prisons stating on January 13, 2009 that 375 life convicts, including 12 women, would be released as a goodwill gesture on the occasion of Republic Day.

Strongly disagreeing with the views of the Minister, the Bench said although execution of sentence was ordinarily a matter for the Executive, it had to be exercised cautiously. It said while exercising the power of remission, the State was required to keep in mind public interest and the interest of society and the victim and his family. It reiterated that life imprisonment under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was 14 years or 20 years and that this issue had been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the Shraddananda case.

It clarified that the only power for the Executive to grant remission stemmed from Article 72 and Article 161 of the Constitution. “In our view, Section 432 (5) only empowers the State to frame rules relating to suspension of sentence and the conditions under which such petitions can be filed. It does not give jurisdiction to frame rules for remission of sentences as is done now under Rules 2007.”

Quoting a Supreme Court judgment, it said en masse release of life convicts was impermissible. Therefore, the decision of the Minister and the Government to release 375 convicts in Karnataka is without the sanction of the law. It said that prescribing a lower limit for women convicts (five years) was discrimination. It said it found the Code illegal and quashed it.