Union Govt appropriate government for TADA remissions: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court yesterday reiterated that in the case of a person convicted of an offence under Terrorism and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987, the power to decide on pre-mature release is with the Central government..A Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh also quashed the parole of 3 months allowed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. By way of background, the case has its genesis in the conviction of the accused Lal Singh under the TADA Act. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, and this conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the convict sought a transfer from the Central Prison, Ahmedabad to the Central Prison, Jalandhar on the ground that his family is based in Punjab and that his old parents were suffering from number of ailments. This was allowed by the Gujarat government..From 2004 onwards, the convict made efforts for pre-mature release under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on the ground that he would complete 14 years of actual sentence in jail. This was declined at various times by the Gujarat government finally culminating in a writ petition in the P&H High Court. The High Court held that the Gujarat government is the appropriate government to consider the release of the convict and directed the Gujarat government to reconsider Lal Singh’s plea for pre-mature release. It also granted him parole for 3 months..The Gujarat government approached the Supreme Court against this judgment..The Supreme Court relying on a plethora of cases including V Sriharan alias Murugan v. Union of India and others and G.V. Ramanaiah v. The Superintendent of Central Jail, Rajahmundry and others held that the Union government is the appropriate authority to decide on the remission/pre-mature release. It held that when a sentence is ordered by a criminal court under a law relating to which the power of Union extends, the power to decide on remission will be with the Union..“In the instant case, the High Court has opined that the State of Gujarat is the appropriate Government. It is because it has been guided by the principle that the first respondent was convicted and sentenced in the State of Gujarat. As we find from the discussion, there has been no reference to the authority in G.V. Ramanaiah (supra). That apart, the issue was not raised before the High Court.”.Regarding the release of Lal Singh for 3 months, the court held that the High Court judgment was in the “realm of abstractions” and not based on reason..“It has been clearly stated in the impugned order that the convict was involved in disruptive activities, criminal conspiracy, smuggling of arms, ammunitions and explosives and further he had also been involved in various other activities. It has also been mentioned that the prisoner under disguise of common name used to purchase vehicles for transportation and his conduct showed that he had wide spread network to cause harm and create disturbance to National Security. Because of the aforesaid reasons remission was declined. In such a fact situation, the view expressed by the High Court to consider the case on the basis of the observations made by it in the judgment is not correct.”.The Court also held that the power of remission is to be exercised by the appropriate government and the interference by courts in remission or pre-mature release should be minmal..The Court, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that Lal Singh could submit a representation before the competent authority of the Central government for his premature release..Advocates DN Ray and Hemantika Wahi appeared for the State of Gujarat while advocate Sunita Sharma appeared for Lal Singh. Additional Advocate General V Madhukar appeared for the State of Punjab..Read the judgment below.