Central Govt Cannot Arbitarily Withhold Consent For Remission Of Sentence, Must Give Cogent Reasons For Denial: Telangana High Court
While hearing the remission plea of a man serving a life sentence in a murder case, the Telangana High Court said that if the state government–which is empowered to recommend remission, approaches the Centre for its consent, then it can't keep the same pending and "withhold it arbitrarily". The high court also emphasized that in case the Centre differs from the State government on grant...
While hearing the remission plea of a man serving a life sentence in a murder case, the Telangana High Court said that if the state government–which is empowered to recommend remission, approaches the Centre for its consent, then it can't keep the same pending and "withhold it arbitrarily".
The high court also emphasized that in case the Centre differs from the State government on grant of remission, then it must provide cogent reasons for doing so instead of making "bald averments" like the convict will commit the offence again.
While deciding the issues framed for consideration in the matter, a division bench of Justice K. Lakshman and. Justice P. Sree Sudha held that the Telangana Government is the appropriate Government to decide a murder convict's plea for remission.
Holding that consent of the Central Government as per Section 435(1) of Cr.P.C. is required before granting remission to the man, the high court directed the Centre to consider the convict's remission application "afresh" and decide it within two months from the order, while keeping the "object of reformation in mind". The high court thereafter extended the man's interim bail till his remission plea was decided.
Background
The court's observations came in an appeal moved by the wife of a man convicted for the murder of MP Magunta Subbarami Reddy and his Personal Security Officer against an order of the single judge bench which had directed the Central Government to decide the man's remission application within one week from the date of receiving its order.
The appellant's husband (convict) was convicted for Section 302 along with other offences under IPC as well as provisions of the Arms Act. The high court noted that the sentence of life imprisonment was imposed on him and the other sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Centre can't withhold consent for remission recommendation arbitrarily
Perusing the pleadings in the matter the bench said that all state government authorities had "unequivocally recommended" the appellant's husband be granted remission. This also included the jail authorities that the convict had shown "remarkable reformation" and had also completed his education while in jail.
The bench noted that the appellant's husband never jumped parole and never misused the liberties granted to him and after undergoing over 27 years in prison, he wants to lead a normal life and become part of the society.
However, the bench said, that despite multiple letters by the State Government to the Central Government to grant remission to the appellant's husband, "no action was ever taken".
"The Central Government, instead of deciding the appellant's husband's case on judicial parameters of reformation, has kept his application pending. Before the learned Single Judge and before us, the Central Government has taken a stand that the appellant's husband is dreaded Naxalite and does not deserve leniency. Nothing was placed on record by the Central Government on the aspect of his reformation," the bench noted.
The high court held that the Central Government's stand that the offence committed by the man is grave and there is a likelihood of him committing the same again, is "unjustified and is not supported by any material" adding that it had not informed if the man is reformed or not.
It further said that a bald averment that the man is still connected to the Naxalite movement and will join the same cannot justify the Centre's stand when the state had reiterated that the man had such links.
"The Central Government without considering the opinion of the State Government cannot arbitrarily withhold its consent. Under Section 435 of the CrPC, if the State Government recommends remission and seeks concurrence of the Central Government, the Central Government cannot keep such an application pending and also cannot withhold its consent arbitrarily. A duty is cast upon the Central Government to give cogent reasons for differing from the recommendation of the State Government to grant remission. A bald statement that the offender/convict will commit the offence again is not sufficient," the bench underscored.
Whether State is appropriate government to decide's the man's remission case
Referring to the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v V. Sriharan (2016) the high court said that it has to decide which government has the law-making power in relation to an offence under Section 302 (murder) IPC.
Noting that this question was answered by the apex court itself the high court said, "Justice U.U. Lalit in his separate concurring opinion held that Section 302 relates to Enty I of List II of the Seventh Schedule. Therefore, the 'appropriate government' for remission of a sentence in relation to an offence under Section 302 is the State Government...Therefore, we hold that the 'appropriate government' in the present case is the State Government. It is the State Government which was empowered to grant remission".
Is Centre's consent necessary
On whether the Central Government's concurrence is required in the present matter the high court observed that as per Section 435 CrPC in certain cases where the 'appropriate government' is the State Government, consultation with the Central Government is "necessary." It reiterated that in this case, the consent of the centre would be necessary since the case was investigated by the CBI.
"These cases include where the offences were investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment which is the CBI or any other central agency; where the offence was in relation to the property of the Central Government; and where the offence is committed by a Central Government employee in discharge of his official duty...It is clear from... V. Sriharan that where the offence is investigated by the CBI, the consent of the Central Government is mandatory," the bench held. In doing so the bench also rejected the appellant's wife's contention that the centre has no role to play in allowing remission.
Considerations for deciding remission plea
Before parting the high court reiterated that the considerations to decide a remission plea is whether the convict/offender is reformed and is ready to start a new life as a member of the society.
"There is overwhelming material produced by the appellant and the State Government stating that the appellant's husband is reformed and wants to start a new life. It is for the Central Government to decide the remission application based on the aspect of reformation and to give reasons differing from the recommendation of the State Government," the bench emphasized
The bench further held that the single judge was justified in directing the Centre to consider the remission application for the appellant's husband within one week.
Case title: Joshi Madhavi v UOI and Others