Governor bound by Cabinet’s advice: Madras High Court
Justices A.D. Jagadish Chandira, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Sunder Mohan answer a reference made to them by a Division Bench of the High Court
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
A Full Bench of the Madras High Court has definitively ruled that the Governor of a state is unequivocally bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when exercising the power of pardon and remission under Article 161. The judgment clarifies that the Governor holds no personal discretion in this matter and cannot take a view different from the one proposed by the state cabinet. This ruling settles conflicting previous judgments from different benches of the same court and reinforces a long-standing constitutional principle.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
This judgment reinforces the foundational principle of a parliamentary system of government, where the Governor is the constitutional or nominal head of the state, while the real executive power resides with the Council of Ministers, which is accountable to the legislature. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of of the Constitution, which grants the Governor the power to pardon, remit, or commute sentences. The court's decision reiterates that this power is not a personal discretionary power but an executive function to be exercised on the aid and advice of the cabinet, as mandated by . Key Supreme Court precedents like Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) and Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980) have consistently held this view. The Maru Ram case specifically established that the pardoning power of the Governor under must be exercised on the binding advice of the Council of Ministers. The recent (2022) also highlighted the binding nature of the cabinet's advice, with the Supreme Court stepping in to order the release of the convict due to the Governor's inordinate delay in acting on the state cabinet's recommendation. This Madras HC ruling serves as a crucial reminder against gubernatorial overreach and clarifies that any exceptions for the Governor's discretionary powers (e.g., reserving a bill for the President, recommending President's rule) do not apply to the executive power under . For UPSC, this topic is vital for understanding the delicate balance of power in India's quasi-federal structure and the precise constitutional role of the Governor.
Governance
The ruling has significant implications for cooperative federalism and the relationship between the Union-appointed Governor and the elected state government. In recent years, friction between Governors and state governments has become a prominent issue, often leading to administrative and legislative gridlock. The Governor's role is intended to be a linchpin of the federal structure, acting as a bridge between the center and the state. However, when Governors act beyond their constitutional mandate or delay decisions, it undermines the authority of the democratically elected state executive. This judgment, by strictly defining the limits of gubernatorial power in matters of remission, promotes constitutional propriety and smoother governance. The court's decision ensures that the process of granting remission to convicts—a key aspect of the criminal justice system's reformative and retributive balance—is guided by the elected government, which is directly accountable to the people. By preventing the Governor from becoming a parallel power center, the judgment upholds the principles of responsible government. It also reinforces the idea that delays in constitutional duties, such as acting on the cabinet's advice for remission, can be subject to judicial review, as seen in the . This strengthens accountability and ensures that constitutional functionaries perform their duties within the prescribed time and manner.
Legal
Legally, the judgment is significant for its application of the doctrine of stare decisis (the principle of following precedent) and its clarification of per incuriam (a judgment given in ignorance of a relevant statutory provision or binding precedent). The Full Bench was constituted to resolve conflicting decisions from two different Division Benches. It upheld the bench that followed the Supreme Court's consistent rulings in Maru Ram and Shamsher Singh, while declaring the other bench's reliance on the M.P. Special Police Establishment case as incorrect for this specific issue. This distinction is crucial: the M.P. case dealt with the Governor's discretion in sanctioning the prosecution of ministers, which is often a statutory power, not a constitutional executive power like . The court's decision solidifies the legal understanding that powers under and the President's parallel powers under are not to be used arbitrarily. While the power itself is discretionary in nature (i.e., not a right of the convict), the decision to exercise it must be based on the cabinet's advice. This ensures that the exercise of clemency is not based on the personal whim of an individual but on a collective, accountable decision-making process. The judgment serves as a powerful instance of judicial review correcting a deviation from established constitutional law at the High Court level, ensuring uniformity and adherence to the Supreme Court's pronouncements.