Perarivalan: Judicial course that calls for introspection
Thirty-one years after his arrest in connection with former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, the Supreme Court (SC) on 18 May ordered the immediate release of life convict A.G. Perarivalan.
On a constitutional level, the verdict in ‘Perarivalan’ deserves a relook or review as it stands on wobbly foundations.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of A.G. Perarivalan and the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case has stirred up a hornet’s nest. For its constitutional righteousness and establishing its supremacy as the final arbiter of enforcing constitutional discipline.
The decision has been hailed by some major political parties as a blow for federalism.
Central Government Act
Article 161 of the Constitution of India, 1949 provides for the
161. Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends
Court’s extraordinary route
The court has treated the extraordinary constitutional route under Article 142. The power to do ‘complete justice’, for grant of remission and consequent premature release.
The bench decided to exercise the power of grant of pardon, remission, exclusively conferred on the President of India and State Governors under Article 72 and Article 161.
In the teeth of foundational bedrock and cornerstone of separation of powers. Parliament/ Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, whether the course adopted by the bench to do expedient justice is constitutional calls for introspection.
Implication of ‘consultation’
If it is a simple case of being a Section 302 crime. The reason for finding fault with the governor’s decision to forward the recommendation to the president may be constitutionally correct.
It concluded that the executive of the state is competent to decide. The bench invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to usurp the power of the governor of state under Article 161.
Conclusion
Sometimes with many issues it will happen that the court’s decision is not completely according to our Constitution. We have to look at the issues before making any conclusion. These are momentous issues that are flagged on the exercise of the power of the remission under Article 142, by the Supreme Court in the present factual context.
Written By: Ashi Dubey
Mail us at edumoundofficial@gmail.com
