LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

A.G. Perarivalan vs. The State, Through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT/MMDA, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and Anr.

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 588Decided 18 May 2022
Criminal Appeal Nos. 833-834 of 2022
L. Nageswara Rao · B.R. Gavai · A.S. Bopanna

Background

A.G. Perarivalan was convicted as accused No.18 for his role in the 1991 assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and was originally sentenced to death; his sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court in 2014. After he had served 23 years, the Tamil Nadu State Cabinet recommended his premature release/remission in September 2018, but the Governor of Tamil Nadu did not decide on this recommendation for over two and a half years, eventually referring it to the President of India in January 2021 without deciding it himself. Perarivalan, who had already been released on bail in March 2022 after spending over 31 years in custody, brought these appeals questioning whether the Governor could bypass the binding advice of the State Cabinet by forwarding the matter to the President.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that under Article 161, the advice of the State Cabinet is binding on the Governor, who acts merely as "a shorthand expression for the State Government" and has no independent discretion to refer a Cabinet recommendation on remission to the President: that action had no constitutional backing. The Court found the Governor's inexplicable multi-year delay in deciding a matter concerning a prisoner's liberty was subject to judicial review, especially once the Cabinet had already recommended release. It also rejected the Union's reliance on the Constitution Bench ruling in Union of India v. Sriharan, clarifying that for an offence under Section 302 IPC (murder), it is the State's executive power that applies absent any express law giving that power to the Centre. Given Perarivalan's 32 years of incarceration (including 16 years on death row and 29 years in solitary confinement), his good conduct, chronic health issues, and the multiple educational qualifications earned in jail, the Court used its extraordinary power under Article 142 to declare he had deemed to have served his sentence and ordered him set at liberty forthwith, rather than sending the matter back to the Governor.

Lesson Learnt

A State Governor cannot sit on or redirect elsewhere a Cabinet's binding recommendation on remission of a sentence under Article 161: such inaction or improper referral is not immune from judicial review, particularly where a citizen's personal liberty and prolonged incarceration are at stake, and the Supreme Court can use its Article 142 powers to grant complete justice when ordinary remand would cause further unjust delay.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case