Constitution Bench Judgment: Questions and Answers [Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case]
A constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India has rendered its judgment in the case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. on the issue of remission of sentences of the those involved in the assassination of former PM Rajiv Gandhi. The Court has held that the state of Tamil Nadu cannot unilaterally determine the remission of sentences in cases where investigation was conducted by agencies of central government.
History
Supreme Court of India has on 21 January 2014 in the case of V. Sriharan alias Murugan v. Union of India & Ors. – (2014) 4 SCC 24, commuted the death sentence of three accused in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. Thereafter on 19 February 2014, state of Tamil Nadu proposed to remit the sentence of life imprisonment and release all the seven convicts in the assassination. Union of India appraoched the Supreme Court challenging the letter proposing so. A bench of the Supreme Court then referred the seven questions arising in the matter for consideration by the Constitution Bench (Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. – 2014 (11) SCC 1.)
Constitution bench of the court then heard the matter and reserved its judgment on 12 August 2015. Bench has now pronounced its judgment and has answered the seven questions referred to it.
Constitution Bench
The Constitution Bench consisted of Chief Justice of India HL Dattu and Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Abhay Manohar Sapre and Uday Umesh Lalit.
Two opinions
The judgment of the Constitution Bench comprises of two opinions written by Justice Kalifulla and Justice Lalit. CJI Dattu and Justice Ghose have supported the judgment of Justice Kalifulla while Justice Sapre vide a short order has agreed with the opinion of Justice Lalit.
While there are two separate judgments, the conclusions of the two judgments differ only in respect of the second part of the answer to the first question. As put by Justice Lalit:
Our conclusions in respect of Questions referred in the Referral Order, except in respect of sub question (b) of Question in Para 52.1 of the Referral Order, are in conformity with those in the draft judgment of Hon’ble Kalifulla J. Since our view in respect of sub question (b) of Question in Para 52.1 of the Referral Order is not in agreement with that of Hon’ble Kalifulla J., while placing our view we have dealt with other questions as well.
Questions and Answers
Question 1
Question | Whether imprisonment for life in terms of Section 53 read with Section 45 of the Penal Code meant imprisonment for rest of the life of the prisoner or a convict undergoing life imprisonment has a right to claim remission and whether as per the principles enunciated in paras 91 to 93 of Swamy Shraddananda(2), a special category of sentence may be made for the very few cases where the death penalty might be substituted by the punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term in excess of fourteen years and to put that category beyond application of remission? |
Justice Kalifulla, CJI HL Dattu and Justice Ghose |
|
Justice Lalit & Justice Sapre |
|
Question No. 2 | Whether the “Appropriate Government” is permitted to exercise the power of remission under Section 432/433 of the Code after the parallel power has been exercised by the President under Article 72 or the Governor under Article 161 or by this Court in its Constitutional power under Article 32 as in this case? |
Justice Kalifulla, CJI HL Dattu and Justice Ghose |
|
Justice Lalit & Justice Sapre |
|
Question No. 3 | Whether Section 432(7) of the Code clearly gives primacy to the Executive Power of the Union and excludes the Executive Power of the State where the power of the Union is co-extensive? |
Justice Kalifulla, CJI HL Dattu and Justice Ghose |
Common answer to question no 3, 4 and 5.
|
Justice Lalit & Justice Sapre |
|
Question No. 4 | Whether the Union or the State has primacy over the subject matter enlisted in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India for exercise of power of remission? |
Justice Kalifulla, CJI HL Dattu and Justice Ghose |
Check answer to question no. 3 above. |
Justice Lalit & Justice Sapre |
|
Question No. 5 | Whether there can be two Appropriate Governments in a given case under Section 432(7) of the Code? |
Justice Kalifulla, CJI HL Dattu and Justice Ghose |
Check answer to question no. 3 above. |
Justice Lalit & Justice Sapre |
|
Question No. 6 | Whether suo motu exercise of power of remission under Section 432(1) is permissible in the scheme of the section, if yes, whether the procedure prescribed in subclause (2) of the same Section is mandatory or not? |
Justice Kalifulla, CJI HL Dattu and Justice Ghose |
|
Justice Lalit & Justice Sapre |
|
Question No. 7 | Whether the term “‘Consultation’” stipulated in Section 435(1) of the Code implies “‘Concurrence’”?” |
Justice Kalifulla, CJI HL Dattu and Justice Ghose |
|
Justice Lalit & Justice Sapre |
|
Matter back to three judge bench
After deciding the questions referred to it, the Constitution Bench has referred the matter back to a three judge to decide on the case. Bench observed:
Now that we have answered the Reference in the matters, the matters will now be listed before an appropriate three learned Judges’ Bench for appropriate orders and directions in the light of the majority Judgment of this Court.
Mohit Singh
Latest posts by Mohit Singh (see all)
- “Video conferencing cannot be directed in transfer petition” holds SC by 2:1, overrules Krishna Veni Nagam - October 9, 2017
- SC asks Centre, social media websites on AoR’s petition for keeping Indians’ data in India - September 7, 2017
- PIL before SC seeks J Lodha Panel’s recommendations to be declared unconstitutional + reference to 7 judge bench - January 6, 2017