Plea questioning Prez’s clemency order dismissed

The President had commuted the death sentence of the three persons—Sheik Meeran, Selvam and Radhakrishnan—to life imprisonment with a condition that they should remain in prison for the remainder of their natural lives without any remission of the term of imprisonment. The trio were awarded death sentences for murdering one Ayyavoo, in the court hall in front of a Judicial Magistrate at Nagercoil in December 1994.

Holding that this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the power exercised by the President in imposing conditions, while granting clemency, Justice N Anand Venkatesh said, “The Supreme Court has found a good and strong basis for the Court to substitute a death sentence by life imprisonment and direct that the convict must not be released from the prison for the rest of his life or for a particular term, as specified in the order.”

“This Court does not find anything wrong in the President of India coming to a similar conclusion considering the merits of the case. That does not in any way tantamount to the executive arrogating to itself a judicial power,” the judge said while noting that if the President had in fact taken cue from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Swamy Shraddananda case, that does not in any way affect the decision taken by the President.

“The condition formed part and parcel of the clemency granted by the President of India and it came as a total package in favour of the petitioners while commuting their death sentence. The petitioners are estopped from questioning the condition and at the same time take advantage of the commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment, Justice Anand Venkatesh added.

The trio in a bid to obtain relief through the GOs issued by the Tamil Nadu government for premature release had moved the court questioning the condition imposed by the President.

Advocate M Radhakrishnan, appearing for the petitioners submitted that commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment is effected only on the ground that the concerned prisoner is capable of being reformed and rehabilitated. In the present case even if the petitioners stand reformed, they will never get a chance to come out of the prison and that goes against the very fundamental principles of criminal law, which always seeks to reform and rehabilitate an accused person.