Centre cannot refuse to remit or commute sentence arbitrarily or unreasonably: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Central government's power to remit or commute a sentence under Section 435 CrPC cannot be withheld arbitrarily or unreasonably (Kartik Subramaniam vs UOI)..A judgment to this effect was passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru. ."It is well settled that all State actions must be informed by reasons and cannot be arbitrary. Considering that such decisions of the Central Government concern the right to life and liberty, it is imperative that such a decision also stand the test of reasonableness on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India," the Court said. .The Court was dealing with a petition preferred by a life-convict (petitioner) whose plea for premature release, though approved by the Sentence Review Board and Delhi government, had been rejected by the Central government thrice. .The fourth such plea is pending consideration before the Central government..The petitioner argued that the Central government’s consent for his premature release was not mandatory..It was inter alia contended that the rejected orders passed by the Central government were unreasoned and therefore, liable to be set aside..The Court noted that Section 435 CrPC prohibited the State government to exercise powers conferred under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC in certain cases except after ‘consultation’ with the Central Government..Consultation with Central government, the Court said, has been interpreted to mean with its consent. .Relying on a series of precedents, the Court also reiterated that the concurrence of the Central government for commuting or remitting a sentence was mandatory. .It, however, said that the same had to examined in the context of the petitioner’s right to premature release. ."The decision of the Central Government to not concur with the recommendation for the premature release of the petitioner must be examined in the context of the petitioner’s right to be so considered. As noticed above, the appropriate government has the power to suspend or remit the sentence under Section 432 of the Cr.PC and to commute the sentence under Section 433 of the CrPC," the Court said. .The Court observed that the statutory power given to Centre is coupled with a duty to exercise the same for the purpose for which it is conferred.."If Central Government declines its consent, it must be on consideration of relevant factors," the Court made it clear. .The Court clarified that the although the SRB guidelines would not be binding on the Central government, it could not withhold its consent arbitrarily and its decision must be informed by reason.."..it is open for the Central Government to take into account factors that it considers relevant in deciding whether the prisoner who has been sentenced to life, ought to be released premature," the Court added..Specifically rejecting the Centre's stand that life sentence would mean the natural life of the convict, the Court said that such a reason is ex-facie, untenable.."This is so for the simple reason that if the said reason is to be followed then no convict, who had been awarded life imprisonment, can be released prematurely. And, it is not the Central Government’s stand that powers under Section 435 of the Cr.PC should not be exercised in any case," the order said. .Considering that the petitioner’s conduct in the jail was exemplary and the Centre had not given any cogent reasons for dissent, the Court set aside the orders of rejection of premature release. .The Central government was directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s premature release in terms of the recommendations of the SRB and as approved by the Delhi government..Advocates Warisha Farasat, Shourya Dasgupta, Bharat Gupta, Hafsa Khan appeared for the petitioner. .ASC Kamna Vohra appeared for State. .Centre was represented by Advocate Nawal Kishore Jha. SPP Ripudaman Bhardwaj appeared for CBI with Advocate Kushagra Kumar..[Read order]