Supreme Court Constitution Bench Clarifies Life Imprisonment and Remission Powers in Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case

Life imprisonment means incarceration for the convict's natural life; Appropriate Government’s remission powers clarified, with Central Government primacy in cases involving Union executive power.

In a landmark judgment delivered on December 2, 2015, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India settled critical legal questions concerning the nature of life imprisonment, remission powers, and the executive authority of the Central and State Governments. The case arose from a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging the Tamil Nadu Government’s proposal to remit the sentences of convicts involved in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Background:

The petitioners, convicted under various statutes including the Indian Penal Code and central laws, had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment by this Court in an earlier judgment. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Government sought remission and proposed releasing several convicts. This led to a legal controversy about the interpretation of life imprisonment, remission powers, and the roles of Union and State Governments in such matters, culminating in a seven-question Reference to the Constitution Bench.

Key Legal Issues Addressed:

1. Definition of Life Imprisonment:

The Court reaffirmed the long-standing legal principle that life imprisonment, as per Section 53 read with Section 45 of the Indian Penal Code, means imprisonment for the convict’s natural life, i.e., until death, unless commuted or remitted by appropriate authorities. The convict’s right to apply for remission or commutation under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution and Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) remains intact but does not confer an automatic right to release.

2. Special Category of Sentence Beyond Remission:

The Court considered the principle laid down in Swamy Shraddananda (2008) that in rare cases where death penalty is substituted by life imprisonment or a term exceeding fourteen years, a special category of sentence could be created to exclude remission. However, the majority held that it is impermissible for courts to create such a special category beyond statutory provisions, particularly Section 433A of the Cr.P.C., which mandates a minimum imprisonment of fourteen years before remission can be considered. The dissenting opinion viewed the creation of such a special category as beyond judicial power.

3. Remission Powers of Appropriate Government Post Constitutional Exercise:

It was held that the Appropriate Government (whether State or Central) retains the power under Sections 432/433 of the Cr.P.C. to grant remission or commute sentences even after the President or Governor has exercised their constitutional powers under Articles 72 or 161, or the Supreme Court under Article 32. The powers under the Cr.P.C. are statutory and separate from constitutional clemency powers.

4. Determining the Appropriate Government:

The Court analyzed Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution and Section 432(7) of the Cr.P.C. to decide whether the Central or State Government is the Appropriate Government for remission or commutation. The Central Government assumes primacy where the offense is against a law relating to a matter on which the Union has executive power, especially when Parliament has enacted laws conferring such power—even if the State Legislature also has concurrent legislative power. In other cases, particularly those related to “public order” under Entry 1 of List II of the Seventh Schedule (such as murder under Section 302 IPC), the State Government is the Appropriate Government.

5. Suo Motu Exercise of Remission Power:

The Court ruled that the power to remit sentences under Section 432(1) Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised suo motu (on its own). It requires an application from the convict or on their behalf, and the procedure under Section 432(2), including obtaining the opinion of the sentencing or confirming court, is mandatory.

6. Meaning of “Consultation” Under Section 435(1) Cr.P.C.:

The Court interpreted the requirement of “consultation” by the State Government with the Central Government in cases investigated by central agencies or involving Central Government property or personnel as effectively meaning “concurrence.” Given the federal structure and the need for a strong Centre, particularly in high-profile or sensitive cases like the Rajiv Gandhi assassination investigated by the CBI, the Central Government’s opinion must be accorded primacy. Mere formal consultation without meaningful consideration would defeat the legislative intent.

7. Impact of Federal Structure and Executive Powers:

The judgment elaborated on the constitutional scheme balancing the executive powers of the Union and States. While States enjoy supremacy within their spheres, the Union has overriding authority in matters where executive power is expressly conferred by the Constitution or Parliament, including matters of national importance, internal security, and concurrent legislative subjects where Parliament has retained executive control.

Significance:

This judgment clarifies the often contentious issues surrounding life imprisonment and remission, emphasizing that life imprisonment is truly for life unless the convict is granted remission or commutation by the appropriate executive authority. It confirms that remission powers under statute are distinct from constitutional clemency powers and can be exercised independently. The judgment also delineates the roles of Central and State Governments in remission cases, highlighting the Central Government’s primacy in cases involving Union executive power, especially those investigated by central agencies.

This decision holds particular importance for cases involving serious offenses, including terrorism and high-profile murders, ensuring that remission decisions consider the broader national interest and not just state considerations. The Court’s interpretation of “consultation” as “concurrence” strengthens the Centre’s supervisory role in such matters.

The judgment also underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in remission cases, rejecting any notion of suo motu remission without application and judicial opinion, thereby enhancing transparency and accountability.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench’s ruling provides authoritative guidance on life imprisonment, remission powers, and federal executive authority, reinforcing the rule of law and the balance between judicial sentencing and executive clemency. It safeguards victims' interests while ensuring convicts retain constitutional and statutory rights to seek remission under due process.

Statutory provisions

Indian Penal Code Sections 45, 53, 54, 55, 55A, 120B, 302, 376A, 376D, 376E, 364A; Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 2(y), 4, 32A (NDPS), 401 (now 432), 402 (now 433), 432, 433, 433A, 434, 435; Constitution of India Articles 32, 53, 54, 72, 73, 74, 161, 162, 217, 222, 245, 246, 247, 249, 250, 251, 252, 254, 256, 257, 258, 258A, 277, 282, 285, 286, 289, 302, 303, 304, 307, 352, 353, 355, 369.

Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan (SC)(Constitution Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 720918