NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday indicated that it would examine laying down the requirements to be adhered to by a Governor of a State for granting pardon or remission of sentence to convicts in jails.

A Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice S. H. Kapadia asked amicus curiae in this case, the former Attorney-General, Soli Sorabjee, and other counsel, to file written submissions in three weeks touching various case laws on this issue.

Utmost importance

The Bench said the issue was of utmost importance particularly when the type of political scenario in the country was such that soon after coming to power "the first thing the ruling party does is to withdraw all cases under Section 321 Cr.P.C. and either grant or refuse pardon or remission." It wanted Mr. Sorabjee to find out whether the denial of remission had been challenged and whether the court had passed any order on such a petition.

The Bench was hearing a petition challenging the grant of pardon by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh to a Congress leader sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment in a murder case. The Bench, while adjourning the hearing by three weeks, directed the Andhra Pradesh Government to produce, in a sealed cover, the entire original records pertaining to the grant of pardon granted to Gowru Venkata Reddy.

Petitioners Epuru Sudhakar and another, sons of the deceased, alleged that Gowru Venkata Reddy was granted remission of sentence by the State Government after he served a jail term of only three years out of the total sentence of 10 years.

When the matter was taken up on Monday, Mr. Sorabjee cited various case laws to show that the power of pardon, commutation and remission of sentence by the President or Governor was subject to judicial review.

He said such a power should not be exercised arbitrarily; otherwise, it would become a mockery. In the United States and Canada, there were clear guidelines on factors such as the age of the convict, his health and conduct and the impact of his release on society and the victim. He said he would submit written submissions on these points and sought time.

Conflict

Senior counsel T.S. Andhyarujina, appearing for the wife of the convict, said the power of pardon was very wide.

He said there were apparent conflicts in earlier judgments and argued that the supervening power of pardon or remission could not be fettered by the court.

In its rejoinder, the Andhra Pradesh Government said the petitioners had misled the court by alleging that remission was granted after a three-year jail term as the accused was actually in jail for five years, two months and five days.

There was no violation of any constitutional provisions or any law and the Governor's power under Article 161 of the Constitution was well defined.

The allegations of favouritism and hastiness in securing pardon were unfounded, it said and sought dismissal of the petition.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail