Union of India v. V. Sri Haran @ Murugan & Ors.
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 06 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
1. Introduction
The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Union of India v. V. Sri Haran@Murugan & Ors. (2015) 14 S.C.R. 613, addressing crucial issues related to the sentencing of convicts, particularly those serving life imprisonment. The judgment arose from a writ petition filed by the Union of India, challenging the proposal of the State Government of Tamil Nadu to remit the sentences of life imprisonment for six convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. [Paragraph 6]
2. Background
In 1991, former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a human bomb in Tamil Nadu. After an extensive investigation, 41 individuals were charged with conspiracy under various acts, and 26 were found guilty and sentenced to death. The case was referred to the Supreme Court for confirmation of the death sentences. [Paragraph 2]
In 1999, the Supreme Court passed judgment in the case, setting aside the convictions and sentences for certain offenses under the TADA Act, while confirming others. Some death sentences were confirmed, while others were altered to life imprisonment. [Paragraph 3]
Over the years, multiple mercy petitions were filed and rejected by various authorities, leading to the commutation of the death sentences of certain convicts to life imprisonment. [Paragraph 5]
3. The Referral Order
On 19.02.2014, the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu proposed to remit the sentences of life imprisonment for six convicts who had already served 23 years. The Union of India filed a writ petition to prevent their release, leading to a referral order by the Supreme Court. [Paragraphs 6, 7]
The referral order formulated seven questions for consideration by the Constitution Bench, including the scope of remission for life imprisonment sentences, the appropriate government entitled to exercise such power, and the extent of that power. [Paragraph 9]
4. Key Issues and Findings
A. Meaning of Life Imprisonment
The Court examined the meaning of "life imprisonment" and held that it means imprisonment for the rest of the convict's natural life, unless commuted or remitted by the appropriate government. [Paragraphs 52, 53, 54]
B. Power of Remission
The Court clarified that the convict serving life imprisonment can apply for remission under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution or Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), and the authority is obligated to consider the application reasonably. However, the convict does not have a guaranteed right to remission. [Paragraph 54]
C. Special Category of Sentence
The Court rejected the idea of creating a special category of sentence in substitution of the death penalty, where the sentence would be exempt from remission. The Court held that it cannot legislate or create a new punishment by putting the matter beyond remissions. [Paragraphs 71, 72, 75]
D. Appropriate Government
The Court examined the issue of the appropriate government entitled to exercise the power of remission under Section 432(7) of the Cr.P.C. It held that:
a. The Union Government has primacy over the State Government in certain cases, as specified in Section 432(7)(a) of the Cr.P.C. [Paragraph 30]
b. In cases where the offense falls under the concurrent list (List III of the Seventh Schedule), and the Union Government has also made laws, the Union Government will have primacy over the State Government. [Paragraph 30]
c. In cases where the investigation is handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or other central investigating agencies, the Central Government's opinion should have decisive status. [Paragraph 39]
E. Meaning of "Consultation"
The Court held that the term "consultation" in Section 435(1) of the Cr.P.C., which mandates consultation with the Central Government before the State Government exercises powers under Sections 432 and 433, implies "concurrence" with the Central Government's opinion taking priority in certain matters. [Paragraphs 39, 52.7]
F. Repeated Exercise of Power of Remission
The Court found no hindrance or prohibition in the repeated exercise of power under Sections 432/433 of the Cr.P.C. by the appropriate government, even after the President, Governor, or the court has already exercised their powers. However, such repeated exercise should be for genuine reasons and is subject to judicial review. [Paragraphs 46, 47, 48]
5. Conclusion
The Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. V. Sri Haran@Murugan & Ors. clarified several crucial aspects of sentencing, remission, and the appropriate government's powers. It upheld the principles of life imprisonment, while providing guidelines for the exercise of remission powers by the appropriate government, ensuring a balance between the interests of justice and the rights of convicts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments