Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: PERARIVALAN in S.Nalini vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 September, 2018Matching Fragments
5. Pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court in W.P.(Crl.) No.48 of 2014 with Crl. Misc. Petition Nos.6280-6281 of 2017, dated 6.9.2018, the Government of Tamil Nadu considered the petition of the life convict A.G.Perarivalan under Article 161 of the Constitution of India in the Cabinet meeting held on 9.9.2018 along with other six life convicts, including the present petitioner, and resolved to grant remission and sent the recommendation to the Governor of Tamil Nadu on 11.9.2018 for his authorisation. However, till date no order has been passed on the recommendation and, hence, this writ petition.
9. Learned counsel has even made a reference of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.G.Perarivalan v. State, through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT/MMDA, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 635. In the said judgment, the issue in hand was considered at length and finding no reason for the Governor of the State to send the matter to the President of India and considering that the convict is behind the bars for the last three decades, the order of release was given. The Apex Court had taken note of the pendency of the recommendation of the Council of Ministers with the Governor for more than two and a half years. Therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.G.Perarivalan, supra, applies to the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis present case also because the recommendation of the Council of Ministers was for the petitioner also.
14. Learned Advocate General referring to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.G.Perarivalan, supra, submits that the direction to release the accused therein was made by exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which power does not exist in the High Court. Therefore, the judgment in the case of A.G.Perarivalan, supra, would not be applicable for issuance of direction for release of the accused. The Apex Court in the case of A.G.Perarivalan, supra, referred to the judgment in the case of M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. and others, (2004) 8 SCC 788, held that the said judgment would not be applicable. However, while considering the issue, a reference to Article 163 of the Constitution of India was ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis made in the case of M.P. Special Police Establishment, supra, which provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion. It was held by the Apex Court that exception to the normal circumstances may be that the recommendation is based on irrelevant or extraneous factors not germane to the purpose of arriving at the conclusion and in such cases, the Governor can act in his own discretion, otherwise there would be a complete breakdown of the rule of law. The Apex Court did not apply the ratio propounded in the case of M.P. Special Police Establishment, supra, as no argument was put forward to make out a case of non consideration of the relevant factors by the State Government or the Council of Ministers or consideration of irrelevant or extraneous factors. It is, however, submitted that by virtue of the aforesaid, the Apex Court has recognised the power of the Governor of the State to look into the matter on certain issues which fall under Article 163 of the Constitution of India and if it is found that the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis recommendation of the Council of Ministers is for extraneous consideration or suffers from other irrelevant considerations, the Governor can exercise the powers conferred under Article 163 of the Constitution. Therefore, the decision of the Council of Ministers by itself would not make the accused entitled for release.
734. The conviction for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 302 Penal Code, 1860 as against A-1 (Nalini), A-2 (Santhan @ Raviraj), A-3 (Murugan @ Thas), A-9 (Robert Payas), A-10 (Jayakumar), A-16 (Ravichandran @ Ravi) and A-18 (Perarivalan @ Arivu) is confirmed.