Constitutional Crossroads: Madras High Court Refers Governor's Discretion in Convict Release to Larger Bench

A significant constitutional debate has reached a pivotal point in the Madras High Court, which has referred the complex question of the Governor's discretion in the premature release of convicts to a larger bench. This move comes as the court grapples with a perceived 'constitutional stalemate' between the Governor and the State government over the exercise of clemency powers under Article 161 of the Constitution.

The genesis of this referral lies in petitions filed by the relatives of seven convicts, all seeking their premature release.

The State government, after due consideration, had recommended their release. However, the Governor chose not to act on these recommendations and instead returned them to the Council of Ministers for reconsideration, raising fundamental questions about the extent of gubernatorial power in such matters.

Justice N.

Anand Venkatesh, presiding over the case, observed that there appeared to be a significant divergence in how the Governor and the State government interpreted their respective roles and powers regarding premature releases. This divergence, he noted, had led to an impasse, necessitating a clearer judicial pronouncement on the matter.

The core legal quandary is whether the Governor is strictly bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when exercising powers under Article 161, or if the Governor retains an independent discretionary power.

The court’s decision to refer the matter was heavily influenced by the interplay of various Supreme Court judgments.

Specifically, Justice Venkatesh highlighted the implications of the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in R. Perarivalan v. State of Tamil Nadu. In that landmark case, the Supreme Court had held that the Governor could refer the State Cabinet's advice to the President in matters where the Centre also had executive power.

However, the Madras High Court pondered whether this specific interpretation could be broadly applied to all premature release cases, especially those not involving Central laws or where the Governor's action appeared to contravene previous Supreme Court directives.

Conversely, the court also considered the 2010 Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana v.

Jagdish, which explicitly stated that the Governor, while exercising clemency powers under Article 161, acts solely on the aid and advice of the State government. The apparent conflict or potential for misinterpretation between these rulings, particularly concerning the extent of the Governor's independent discretion versus adherence to ministerial advice, became a central point of contention.

Recognizing the profound constitutional implications and the need for a definitive resolution to avoid conflicting interpretations and future impasses, Justice Venkatesh deemed it imperative to have a larger bench examine these intricate legal questions.

The decision of this larger bench will undoubtedly set a crucial precedent, clarifying the constitutional framework governing the Governor's powers in the premature release of convicts and reinforcing the delicate balance of power between the executive and constitutional offices in India.