Central govt cannot arbitrarily withhold consent to quash judgment, must give cogent reasons for refusal: Telangana High Court

Hearing a plea seeking remission of sentence filed by a man serving a life sentence for murder, the Telangana High Court has ruled that if the state government — which has the power to recommend remission of sentence — seeks the Centre’s consent, it cannot postpone and “arbitrarily stay” it.

The Supreme Court also emphasised that in case the Central government differs from the State government on the issue of remission of sentence, it must provide cogent reasons for its decision instead of making “mere claims” such as that the convict will commit the offence again.

In resolving the issues that are the subject of consideration in this case, the adjudicating panel composed of: Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sree Sudha held that the competent government to decide on the plea of ​​the murder convict seeking to quash the proceedings was the Telangana State Government.

Holding that the consent of the Central Government under Section 435(1) of the Cr.P.C. is required before granting bail to the man, the Supreme Court directed the Centre to consider the convict’s bail application “afresh” and decide the same within two months from the date of issuance of the order, keeping in mind “the purpose of rehabilitation”. The Supreme Court further extended the man’s interim bail pending the decision of his bail application.

Background

The court’s observations were made in response to an appeal filed by the wife of a man convicted of murdering MP Magunta Subbarami Reddy and his personal security officer against the order of a division bench which directed the Central Government to decide on the man’s plea for remission of sentence within a week from the date of receipt of the order.

The husband of the appellant (convict) was convicted for Section 302 along with other offences under IPC as well as provisions of the Arms Act. The Supreme Court observed that the sentence imposed on him was life imprisonment and the other sentences were to run concurrently.

The Centre cannot arbitrarily refuse to agree to a remission recommendation.

After reviewing the pleadings in the case, the jury found that all state government authorities had “unequivocally recommended” that the appellant’s husband be remitted. This included prison authorities, who found that the convict had shown “extraordinary improvement” and had completed his education in prison.

The judges noted that the applicant’s husband had never been eligible for parole or abused the freedoms granted to him, and that after more than 27 years in prison, he wanted to lead a normal life and become part of society.

However, the judge said, despite numerous letters sent by the State Government to the Central Government seeking debt waiver for the complainant’s husband, “no action was taken”.

“The Central Government, instead of deciding the case of the appellant’s husband on the basis of judicial parameters of rehabilitation, left his application pending. Before the Hon’ble District Judge and before us, the Central Government took the stand that the appellant’s husband was a feared Naxalite and did not deserve leniency. The Central Government did not place anything on record regarding the aspect of his rehabilitation, the judge noted.

The High Court held that the Central Government’s stand that the offence committed by the man was serious and there was a possibility of him committing it again was “unfounded and not supported by any material”, adding that the Government had not informed whether the man had reformed or not.

The document further said that the brazen claim that the man was still associated with the Naxalite movement and would join it could not justify the Centre’s stand when the state had repeatedly emphasised that the man had such links.

“The Central Government cannot arbitrarily withhold its consent without considering the views of the State Government. As per Section 435 of CrPC, if the State Government recommends remission and seeks the consent of the Central Government, the Central Government cannot withhold such a request and cannot also arbitrarily withhold its consent. The onus is on the Central Government to give cogent reasons for departing from the recommendation of the State Government for granting remission. A clear statement that the offender/convict will re-offend is not sufficient.“- the bench emphasized.

Is the state the right government to decide whether to discontinue this man’s treatment?

Referring to the test established by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) The Supreme Court held that it has to decide which government has the legislative power in respect of the offence under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code.

Noting that this question had been answered by the Supreme Court itself, the Supreme Court stated:Justice UU Lalit in his separate opinion held that Section 302 refers to Ent I List II of the Seventh Schedule. Therefore, the “appropriate Government” to grant remission of sentence in respect of the offence under Section 302 is the State Government… We, therefore, hold that the “appropriate Government” in the instant case is the State Government. It is the State Government that is empowered to grant remission“.

Is the Centre’s consent necessary?

On the issue of whether the Central Government’s consent was required in the instant case, the Supreme Court observed that under Section 435 of the CrPC, in certain cases where the “appropriate Government” is the State Government, consultation with the Central Government is “necessary”. It reiterated that in this case, the Centre’s consent would be necessary since the case was being investigated by the CBI.

“Such cases include those where the offences were investigated by the Special Delhi Police, i.e., the CBI or any other Central agency; where the offence involved the property of the Central Government; and where the offence was committed by an employee of the Central Government while discharging his official duties… It is clear from… V. Sriharan that when an offence is investigated by the CBI, the consent of the Central Government is mandatory”, the court ruled. In doing so, the court also rejected the applicant’s wife’s claim that the centre had no role to play in facilitating the waiver.

Considerations when deciding to discontinue proceedings

Before parting ways, the high court reiterated that when deciding whether to remit a sentence, it takes into account whether the convict/offender is reformed and ready to start a new life as a member of society.

“There is overwhelming material produced by the complainant and the State Government stating that the complainant’s husband is reformed and wants to start a new life. It is for the Central Government to decide the discharge application based on the aspect of rehabilitation and give reasons different from the recommendation of the State Government“the jury emphasized

The trial judges further ruled that the single-judge judge had the right to order the Centre to consider the application for remission of the sentence of the applicant’s husband within one week.

Case Title: Joshi Madhavi vs UOI and Others

Click here to read/download the order