The Supreme Court (SC) rejected on Thursday the plea that Centre and state governments enjoyed absolute power to commute sentences of convicts.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court (SC) rejected on Thursday the plea that Centre and state governments enjoyed absolute power to commute sentences of convicts even if they have been sentenced to life.
Issuing notices to the Centre and Andhra Pradesh (AP), the court restrained the AP government from prematurely releasing about 1,600 convicts.
Judges asked AP counsel and additional solicitor-general Gopal Subramanium whether the government would release the convicts in Mumbai blasts case or Nithari children massacre case. Subramanium reserved his reply.
Analysts say the writ by lawyer R Chandrashekar Reddy seeking a stay on the release of AP prisoners, many of them hardened criminals, raises a vital issue of public interest.
Justices B N Aggarwal and D K Jain said they would resume hearing after a month.
Chandrashekhar’s petition recalls the apex court’s ruling on June 11 last year that the president or a governor couldn’t grant clemency to a convict on the grounds of religion, politics or an extraneous consideration. The power of ‘prerogative’, as the court termed this reprieve mechanism, must not violate the rule of law.
High constitutional authorities such as the president or a governor must consider the impact of their decisions on the victims’ families, society as a whole and the precedent they sets.
Justices Arijit Pasayat and S H Kapadia, who delivered the unanimous decision a year ago, quashed then AP governor Sushil Kumar Shinde’s order pardoning the husband of a Congress MLA on the ground that “he is a good Congressman”.
Passing strictures on the executive, the judges said, “The only reason why a pariah becomes a messiah appears to be the change in the ruling #pattern. With such pliable bureaucracy, there is a need for deeper scrutiny when power of pardon or remission is exercised.”
Former attorney general Soli J Sorabjee, who assisted the court in the case, had sought guidelines for exercising the power of pardon.
“Considering the frequency with which pardons or remission are being granted, it would be appropriate to lay down guidelines” to check misuse of powers under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution,” he said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}