By getting industry leaders to commit to invest ₹6.64 lakh crore through 631 Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) signed over the course of the two-day Tamil Nadu Global Investors Meet (GIM 2024), the M.K. Stalin government seems intent on using job creation to steer the State on a growth trajectory. The projections of an additional 26.90 lakh jobs including 14.54 lakh through direct employment are meant to reinforce Tamil Nadu’s reputation as an economic power house.
Despite the law being amply clear in a Constitution Bench decision in Union of India vs V. Sriharan (2015) that the appropriate government to decide a remission application is the State where the convicts are sentenced, the Court notes that the Gujarat government “usurped” power from the Government of Maharashtra.
The concept of remission:
Prison is a State subject.
In the context of life convicts, they necessarily have to serve a minimum of 14 years in prison before they can become eligible to apply for remission.
Each application has to be individually considered by a committee based on factors laid down by the Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar vs State of West Bengal (2000).
These include-
examining whether the offence is an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large
chance of recurrence of crime
whether the convict has lost their potentiality in committing crime
whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining the convict any more; and socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.
Naturally, given the individualized nature of the inquiry, these factors are subjective. This makes the reasons guiding these decisions extremely crucial.
However, the reality is that there is both a lack of transparency on how these committees are formed to decide individual applications and reasons guiding the decisions. Such a state of affairs makes remission a potent site for exercise of arbitrary power.
The current case is one such example of unchecked discretion.
In the Bilkis Bano case on remission, the Supreme Court found illegalities and injustices that spoke to ‘fraud’ and ‘usurpation of power’ by the government, and, therefore, did not need to go into difficult normative questions.
NOTE: The Pardoning Power of the President and Governor is available under Article 72 & 161 of the Indian Constitution respectively.
