Madras HC rules Governor bound by Cabinet advice on remission powers
A Full Bench of the Madras High Court ruled that the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers when exercising powers under Article 161 of the Constitution regarding remission and premature release of convicts. The Bench, comprising Justices A.D. Jagadish Chandira, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, and Sunder Mohan, stated that the Governor has no discretion to take a different view. This decision resolved conflicting judgments by other Division Benches, affirming that the issue was settled by a 1980 Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Maru Ramu's case, which was also followed in the A.G. Perarivalan case.
Key Points
- The Madras High Court's Full Bench affirmed that the Governor must act on the Council of Ministers' advice for remission powers under Article 161.
- The ruling clarifies that the Governor has no discretionary power to deviate from the Cabinet's advice in such matters.
- This decision resolved conflicting interpretations from other Division Benches of the High Court.
- The Full Bench relied on the Supreme Court's 1980 Constitution Bench judgment in Maru Ramu's case and the 2022 A.G. Perarivalan case.
Exam Facts
- Constitutional Article: Article 161 (Governor's power to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentences).
- Madras High Court Justices: A.D. Jagadish Chandira, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, Sunder Mohan.
- Supreme Court Cases: Maru Ramu's case (1980 Constitution Bench), A.G. Perarivalan case (2022).
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.