Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 45 - SC - Indian LawsPower of the SC to grant pardon or remission - Conviction u/s 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) - Held that - The present factual matrix does not remotely suggest that there has been violation of any fundamental right. There is no violation of any law which affects the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The argument that when a pardon or remission can be given under Article 72 or 161 of the Constitution by the constitutional authority, this Court can exercise the similar power under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is absolutely based on an erroneous premise. Article 32, as has been interpreted and stated by the Constitution Bench and well settled in law, can be only invoked when there is violation of any fundamental right or where the Court takes up certain grievance which falls in the realm of public interest litigation - Decided against the appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the remission granted by the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution has an overriding effect over the provisions of Section 32A of the NDPS Act. 2. Whether the denial of remission under the New Punjab Jail Manual, 1996 to convicts under the NDPS Act is justified. 3. Whether the constitutional validity of Section 32A of the NDPS Act affects the power of the executive under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution. 4. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to authorities to grant remission to the petitioners under Article 32 of the Constitution. 5. Whether the Supreme Court can exercise powers under Article 142 to grant remission. Detailed Analysis: 1. Overriding Effect of Article 161 Over Section 32A of the NDPS Act: The petitioners argued that the remission granted by the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution should override Section 32A of the NDPS Act, which bars suspension, remission, or commutation of sentences under the Act. The Court noted that the constitutional validity of Section 32A had been upheld in Dadu @ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra, which stated that Section 32A does not affect the executive's power under Articles 72 and 161. The Court concluded that the statutory provision does not create any fetter on the exercise of constitutional power. 2. Denial of Remission Under the New Punjab Jail Manual, 1996: The petitioners contended that Chapter XIX of the Manual, which provides for remission based on good conduct, should apply to them. However, the State opposed this, citing Section 32A of the NDPS Act, which bars such remission. The Court examined the provisions of the Manual and noted that the State Government had issued orders excluding convicts under the NDPS Act from remission benefits. Therefore, the denial of remission was justified as it aligned with the statutory mandate of Section 32A. 3. Constitutional Validity of Section 32A of the NDPS Act: The Court reaffirmed the constitutional validity of Section 32A, as upheld in Dadu’s case, which distinguished between the powers of the judiciary and the executive. The provision was deemed valid as it restricted the executive's power to suspend, remit, or commute sentences under the NDPS Act, without infringing on the judiciary's powers. 4. Issuance of Writ of Mandamus Under Article 32: The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to grant remission. The Court held that Article 32 applies only to the enforcement of fundamental rights. Since the petitioners did not demonstrate any violation of fundamental rights, the request for a writ of mandamus was dismissed. The Court emphasized that Section 32A's restriction on remission does not violate fundamental rights. 5. Exercise of Powers Under Article 142: The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court could use its powers under Article 142 to grant remission. The Court rejected this argument, stating that Article 142 should not be used to contravene statutory provisions. The Court cited previous judgments, including Maru Ram and V. Sriharan, to assert that constitutional powers under Articles 72 and 161 are distinct from statutory powers and cannot be overridden by judicial discretion under Article 142. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that Section 32A of the NDPS Act is constitutionally valid and that the petitioners are not entitled to remission under the New Punjab Jail Manual. The Court clarified that the powers under Articles 72 and 161 remain unaffected by Section 32A, but these constitutional powers are distinct from statutory provisions and cannot be exercised by the Court under Article 32 or Article 142 in this context.
|