The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justices P. N. Prakash and A. A. Nannikaran in the case of Dr. Esther v. The State of Tamil Nadu has observed that Governor and State Government are not bound by the State Level Committee for premature release of the Petitioner.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, John David faced a prosecution for the alleged murder of one Navarasu. He was found guilty by the trial Court of the offences under Sections 364, 342, 302 and 201 IPC and was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.

The Government of Tamil Nadu issued order, for premature release of the convict prisoners fixing several eligibility conditions. The representation of Petitioner was not considered by the authorities for premature release by extending the benefit; he filed the Writ Petition before the High Court.

Submission of the Petitioner

The Counsel on the behalf of the Petitioner has submitted the track record of John David and pointed out that John David was acquitted by the High Court, he did not at all get involved in any offence and after the judgment of the Supreme Court reversing the acquittal made by the High Court and confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, he surrendered and his conduct in the prison thereafter has been exemplary.

 He further submitted that the State Government had released the accused involved in far more heinous offences like the ones in infamous Dharmapuri bus burning case and Melavalavu case, which is discriminatory.

Submission of the Respondent

The Counsel on the behalf of the Respondent has submitted that the Government had rejected the case of John David based on the manner in which the crime was committed and not on the basis that it was committed with a doctor's knives. He also submitted that there cannot be any negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Reasoning and Decision of the Court

The Court considered the facts of the case and expounded that The State Level Committee which is composed of the Inspector General of Prisons and the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Headquarters) can only recommend a case to the State Government and cannot exercise the power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India.

The Court relied on several Judgments and observed that the Governor of the State would exercise the power under Article 161, on the recommendation of the Cabinet. Thus, the Cabinet has the authority to accept or reject the recommendation of the State Level Committee and accordingly, give their advice to the Governor.

Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition and held that in the instant case, it is obvious that the Governor has chosen to reject the recommendation of the State Level Committee qua premature release of John David, by the impugned Government Order.

Case Details

Case: - W.P. No.8237 of 2020 & W.M.P. Nos.9842 and 9845 of 2020

Petitioner: - Dr. Esther

Respondent: - The State of Tamil Nadu

Judge: Justices P. N. Prakash and A. A. Nannikaran

Picture Source :