Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

65. In fact in this case the NHRC did not send any recommendation as long as the first review  proceedings were pending in this court. The NHRC was keeping a track of the proceeding in the Court. From its order dated 16.10.09, it is revealed that NHRC was aware that a review petition was filed against the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2000, in addition to a mercy petition filed before the Governor of Assam. The NHRC closely followed the proceedings of the review petition.

70. However, in the facts of this case, NHRC has not committed any illegality by taking into consideration the article written by Professor Ved Kumari and then making a mere recommendation to the Governor, for considering the petitioner's plea for commutation. We are of the opinion that in doing so, NHRC acted within its jurisdiction.

B. Whether non-disclosure of reason vitiates the Order of the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution?

85. This Court has already held that NHRC has the jurisdiction, in the facts of this case, to make its recommendation to the Governor to take into account the materials which NHRC considered.

This court also finds that the Governor considered, apart from the said recommendation of NHRC, other relevant materials also and, therefore, the order of the Governor is not vitiated in as much as it is not solely based on the recommendations of NHRC.

(ii) The order of the Governor dated 28.1.2002 passed under Article 161 of the Constitution is restored and the order of commutation of death sentence awarded to the petitioner to one of life imprisonment stands.

(iii) This Court holds that in the facts of this case, NHRC had the jurisdiction to make the relevant recommendation.

94. The review petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.