“It was the State of Maharashtra [which] could have only passed the remission orders respondent no 3 [convict] surreptitiously filed the plea before the Supreme Court. Taking advantage of May 13 order of this court, other convicts also filed remission applications and this Gujarat government passed remission orders. Gujarat was complicit and acted in tandem with respondent no. 3 (convict) in this case. This court was misled by suppressing facts. Use of power by Gujarat was only an usurpation of power by the State,” the Supreme Court ruled in the January 8 verdict.
On the Supreme Court’s May 2022 ruling that held Gujarat to be competent to decide the plea for premature release of the convicts, the bench headed by Justice Nagarathna found that the convict who had approached the top court had suppressed the material facts.
The convict had not disclosed that Gujarat High Court had earlier dismissed his plea for a decision by Gujarat government and after that he had even filed an application of premature release in Maharashtra.
The Court found the convict to have “played fraud” with it, as it reasoned that if he were aggrieved by the Gujarat High Court order, he could have filed an appeal before the top court.
However, it noted that he instead moved Maharashtra government for remission and when the same was rejected by the Maharashtra government, he moved the Supreme Court which then ruled in his favour in May 2022 and held Gujarat to be the competent State to decide the remission plea.
Pursuant to that, the Gujarat government released him and other convicts.
The top court, however, took exception to this in its January 8, 2024 judgment and said that Gujarat High Court order could not have been set aside in an Article 32 plea.
Due to the suppression of the facts, the bench headed by Justice Nagarathna held the earlier ruling as non est and invalid in law.
“May 13, 2022 order of this court is also per incuriam since it does not follow the binding decision of the nine judge bench of the Supreme court where a HC order cannot be set aside in a PIL..,” it added.
Source: Barandbench
