Judgments

MARU RAM  VS UNION OF INDIA : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Maru Ram Vs Union of India (1981) 1 SCR 1196  held  that pardoning powers under Article 72 or Article 161 by the President or the Governor , as the case may be, have to be exercised on the aid and advice of Council of Ministers.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Section 433 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been challenged before the Supreme Court in several Writ Petitions  which provided that where a sentence of imprisonment of life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law or where the sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.

FINDINGS OF THE SURPEME COURT

It was contended by the appellants that Section 433 A violates Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution. Section 433 A is wholly arbitrary and irrational and violates Article 14. It was also contended that Section 433A Cr.P.C  is violative of Article 20 (1).

The Supreme Court noted that before amendment many a murderer or other offender who could have been given death sentence by the court but has been actually awarded only life sentence might have been released the very next morning, next year, after a decade or at any other time the appropriate Government was in mood to remit his sentence.  

The Supreme Court observed that sentencing is a judicial function but execution of a sentence is ordinarily a matter of executive function. Once sentence has been imposed, the only way to terminate is before the stipulated term is by action under Section 432/433 Cr.P.C. or Article 72/161.

The Supreme Court observed that an order of remission does not wipe out the offence, it also does not wipe out the conviction. All that it does is to have an effect on the execution of the sentence.

The  Supreme Court rejected that argument that Section 433 A violates Section 20 (1) of the Constitution as inflexible sentencing of 14 years retroactively enlarges the sentence.  The Supreme Court observed that no greater punishment is inflicted by Section 433 A than the law annexed originally to the crime. Nor is any vested right to remission cancelled by compulsory 14 years in jail life once it is realized that a life sentence is a sentence for a whole life.

The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that Section 433 A violates Article 14 of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court noted that the triple purposes of sentencing are retribution,  deterrence, and rehabilitation. Deterrence has been accepted as valid punitive component. Incarceration for 14 years for gravest crimes like murder is not shocking. Further, ever for correctional therapy, a long hospitalization in prison may be needed.

The Supreme Court held that Section 433 Cr. P. C. does not violate Article 72 or Article 161. Power under Article 72 and Article 161 cannot be equated with power granted under Section 433 A Cr.P.C.  The source is different, the strength is different, although the stream may be flowing along the same bed. Two powers are far from being identical and obviously the constitutional power is “untouchable” and “unapproachable” and cannot suffer the vicissitudes of the simple legislative processes. Therefore Section 433 A cannot be invalidated as indirectly violative of Article 72 and Article 161.

The Supreme Court held that power under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution can be exercised by the Central and State Governments, not by the President or Governor on their own. The advice of the appropriate Government binds the Governor or the President as the case may be. No separate order for each individual case is necessary but any general order made be clear enough to identify the group of cases and indicate the application of mind to the whole group.

The Supreme Court observed that considerations for exercise of power under Article 72/161 may be myriad and their occasions protean and are left to the appropriate government, but no consideration nor occasion can be wholly irrelevant, irrational, discriminatory or mala fide. Only in these rare cases will the court examine the exercise.

The Supreme Court held Section 433 Cr.P.C. constitutionally valid.

__________________________________________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *