Introduction

A.G. Perarivalan v. State, Through Superintendent Of Police CBI/Sit/Mmda, Chennai, Tamil Nadu And Another (S). (2022 INSC 587) is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on May 18, 2022. This case revolves around the appellant, accused as No. 18 in the assassination of former Prime Minister Shri Rajeev Gandhi on May 21, 1991. Convicted under multiple stringent laws including the IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, Passport Act, and TADA, the appellant was initially sentenced to death. Over the years, his sentence underwent various legal challenges, culminating in a comprehensive examination of the Governor's role in the commutation of his sentence.

The key issues addressed in this case include the scope of the Governor's powers under Article 161 of the Constitution concerning remission and commutation of sentences, the appropriateness of referring State Cabinet recommendations to the President of India, and the judicial oversight on executive decisions in such matters.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, examined the appellant’s prolonged incarceration and the procedural lapses surrounding the remission of his sentence. Despite the State of Tamil Nadu's proposal for sentence remission, the Governor inexplicably referred the recommendation to the President of India without any constitutional backing. The Court held that the Governor is bound by the State Cabinet's advice under Article 161 and lacks the authority to escalate the matter to the President. Consequently, considering the appellant's extended imprisonment, good conduct, educational qualifications, and ill health, the Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to deem the sentence as served, leading to the immediate release of the appellant.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referred to several landmark judgments to establish the boundaries of the Governor's discretion:

• Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107: Affirmed that the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and is bound by their decisions.
• M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. (2004) 8 SCC 788: Highlighted exceptions where the Governor can act independently, such as cases of apparent bias or irrational decisions by the State Cabinet.
• Sriharan v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 1: Discussed the appropriate government for remittance of sentences under various sections of the CrPC.
• Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. (2006) 8 SCC 161: Established that non-exercise or delay in the Governor's powers under Article 161 is subject to judicial review.
• K.M. Nanavati v. State of Bombay (1961) AIR 1961 SC 112: Emphasized the role of the State Government and Governor in remission matters.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously dissected Articles 161, 162, and 163 of the Constitution to delineate the boundaries of executive power at the State level. It affirmed that the Governor acts as a constitutional head with the Council of Ministers wielding actual executive authority. Unless explicitly empowered by the Constitution or law, the Governor lacks independent discretion in matters like sentence commutation.

In this case, since the State Cabinet had unequivocally recommended remission, the Governor was constitutionally obligated to act upon this advice. The subsequent referral to the President was found to be without any constitutional provision, thereby overstepping the Governor's remit.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the primacy of the State Cabinet's advice in executive decisions related to sentence commutation and remission. It curtails any unwarranted escalation of State decisions to the Union level, thereby maintaining the federal balance envisioned by the Constitution. Future cases involving executive discretion in sentence commutation will likely reference this judgment to uphold the binding nature of State Cabinet advice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 161 of the Constitution

This article empowers the Governor of a State to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of an offense. However, this power is exercised on the advice of the State Council of Ministers, rendering the Governor’s discretion limited unless explicitly provided.

Article 142 of the Constitution

Article 142 grants the Supreme Court of India the power to pass any decree or order necessary to do complete justice in any case. It is an extraordinary power used sparingly to address exceptional circumstances where no other legal remedy is sufficient.

Judicial Review

Judicial review refers to the power of the judiciary to examine the actions of the executive and legislative branches and ensure they conform to the Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court exercised judicial review to determine the appropriateness of the Governor’s actions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in A.G. Perarivalan v. State serves as a pivotal reference for the limits of executive discretion at the State level, particularly concerning the Governor's role in sentence commutation and remission. By reaffirming that Governors act primarily on the advice of their respective State Cabinets, the judgment upholds the constitutional framework's federal balance. Additionally, it highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring that executive actions remain within constitutional boundaries, thereby safeguarding individual liberties against administrative overreach. This decision not only facilitated the immediate release of a long-incarcerated individual but also set a clear precedent for future cases involving executive discretion in judicial matters.