State Not Bound By Prison Authority's Recommendation For Premature Release Of Convicts: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has refused to reconsider the case of John David, convicted prisoner in the 1996 infamous murder of Pon Navarasu, for premature release.A bench of Justices P.N. Prakash and A.A. Nakkiran observed that the State Government and the Governor are not bound by the recommendation made by the jail authorities in favour of John David. The Governor alone can exercise the power conferred for granting premature release of a prisoner under Article 161 of the Constitution, upon advice rendered by the State Cabinet, the court added.Supreme Court had reversed the acquittal of John David by Madras High Court and confirmed the order of conviction by the Cuddalore trial court sentencing him to double life imprisonment in 2011. John David was the prime accused in the murder of Pon Navarasu, a first-year MBBS Student in Annamalai University and the son of Madras University's former Vice-Chancellor. The public outcry after the heinous murder paved way for the first state legislation criminalising ragging in educational institutions, i.e, Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997.While refusing to entertain the plea made by Dr Esther, mother of the convicted prisoner, against the G.O(D) 372 depriving her son of the benefit of G.0. 64 in commemoration of the birth centenary celebrations of Dr M.G. Ramachandran, the Division Bench noted as below:"The State Level Committee which is composed of the Inspector General of Prisons and the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Headquarters) can only recommend a case to the State Government and cannot exercise the power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The Governor of the State would exercise the power under Article 161, ibid., on the recommendation of the Cabinet. Thus, the Cabinet has the authority to accept or reject the recommendation of the State Level Committee and accordingly, give their advice to the Governor."The bench observed that grant or remission of parole is not a right vested with the prisoner according to Home Secretary (Prison) and Others v. H.Nilofer Nisha [(2020) 14 SCC 161]. The bench further noted that though the Government was misdirected in saying that the convict used Doctor's knife instead of a fruit knife to cut the dead body into several pieces, it does not mitigate the heinous nature of the crime and 'the brutal and cruel manner in which the murder of Navarasu had been committed'. The court also observed that it cannot interfere with the Government Order under Article 226 since it does have any powers under Article 142, unlike the Supreme Court and the release of prisoners in Nilofer Shah was on a case-case basis by the Supreme Court itself. The court also placed reliance on Epuru Sudhakar & Anr v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [(2006 8 SCC 161] to underscore that the President and the Governor are the 'sole judges of the sufficiency of facts and of the appropriateness of granting the pardons and reprieves'.When the petitioner counsel contended that the convicts in much more heinous crimes have been released by the Government prematurely, the judges also noted that there cannot be 'negative equality'. The judgment in R. Muthukumar and Others vs. Chairman & Managing Director, TANGEDCO & Others, 2022 LiveLaw SC 140 was referred to wherein the apex court held that if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality."Therefore, just because the Government had fallen in error in releasing the accused in the infamous Dharmapuri bus burning case and Melavalavu case, the same error cannot be allowed to be perpetrated and relief granted to John David", the court added.Dharmapuri Bus Burning occurred in 2000, shortly after the former CM J. Jayalalithaa was convicted for the Kodaikanal Pleasant Stay Hotel case. Three students from Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore succumbed to the burns and three AIADMK men were sentenced to death in the trial. Their sentences were commuted in a review petition before the apex court and then they were prematurely released by the state government in 2018.In the Melavalavu massacre case, a Panchayat President and six Dalit men were killed by the upper caste villagers since they were irked by the election of a Scheduled Caste member as Panchayat President."...Again, as rightly pointed out, the act of the accused was not merely to murder the deceased but also to terrorise the entire Scheduled Caste community from daring to stand for Panchayat election", Madras High Court had noted while upholding the conviction of accused.Thirteen such convicts were allowed premature release by the state government in 2019.About the petitioner counsel's reliance on Satish @ Sabbe vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [2020], the court observed that pre mature release was allowed since the executive authorities failed to comply with Section 2 of the Uttar...

State Not Bound By Prison Authority's Recommendation For Premature Release Of Convicts: Madras High Court

Sebin James

Tags