Skip to main content

Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Others (2015) – Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Case

Background

The case stems from the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, by a suicide bomber associated with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
Seven individuals, including V. Sriharan @ Murugan, Santhan, and Perarivalan, were convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and initially sentenced to death.

After lengthy legal proceedings, the Supreme Court of India commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment in 2014, citing the 11-year delay in deciding their mercy petitions. The Court ruled that such an inordinate delay caused mental agony and undue suffering, violating the convicts' fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

However, a legal battle arose between the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu over:

  1. Who had the authority to remit or commute their life sentences (Central vs. State Government)?

  2. What constitutes "life imprisonment" — whether it means incarceration for a fixed term or entire natural life?

Supreme Court’s Key Rulings (2015)

  1. Power of Remission Lies with the Centre in Certain Cases

    • The Court ruled that since the case involved terrorism and was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Central Government had the overriding authority to decide on remission, not the State Government (Tamil Nadu).

    • This reinforced Centre’s primacy in terror-related cases under Article 73 and Article 162 of the Constitution.

  2. "Life Imprisonment" Can Mean "Imprisonment for Entire Natural Life"

    • The Supreme Court held that in cases involving heinous crimes or terrorist activities, courts could impose a life sentence specifying no possibility of remission, requiring the convict to spend the rest of their natural life in prison.

    • However, such conditions must be clearly stated at the time of sentencing.

  3. No Automatic Right to Release After 14 Years

    • The Court clarified that there is no automatic entitlement for release after serving 14 years of a life sentence, despite remission policies of individual states.

    • Life imprisonment ordinarily means incarceration for the remainder of the convict’s life, unless legally remitted.

Aftermath & Impact

  • The convicts continued to serve their sentences.

  • Perarivalan was later released in 2022 following a separate constitutional battle invoking Article 161 (Governor’s powers of clemency).

  • The ruling strongly reinforced the Central Government's supremacy in terror-related cases, limiting State Government powers in sensitive national security matters.

  • It clarified sentencing policies for life imprisonment without remission, offering guidance for future criminal cases involving heinous offences.

Significance

  • This judgment became a landmark case on death penalty commutation due to delay in mercy pleas.

  • It redefined life imprisonment in India by validating whole life terms without parole in cases of exceptional gravity.

  • It highlighted the tension and settled the Centre vs. State jurisdiction on granting remissions and pardons under Articles 72 and 161.

  • It strengthened India's legal framework dealing with terrorism cases, criminal justice reforms, and human rights under Article 21.

Citation: Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Others, (2016) 7 SCC 1


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

India’s Extradition Treaties: How They Impact the Vijay Mallya & Nirav Modi Cases

Introduction Extradition is a critical tool in international law that enables countries to hand over fugitives to jurisdictions where they face criminal charges. India has signed extradition treaties with over 50 countries and extradition arrangements with 11 others to curb financial crimes, terrorism, and other serious offenses. However, high-profile cases like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi have tested India's extradition mechanisms and diplomatic relations. This article explores India's extradition laws, its treaties, and the challenges faced in these landmark cases. Understanding Extradition Laws in India 1. The Extradition Act, 1962 The primary legal framework governing extradition in India is T he Extradition Act, 1962 . This Act provides the conditions and procedures for extradition between India and foreign nations. Extradition Treaty Countries : India has formal agreements with over 50 countries , including the UK, USA, UAE, and Canada , which provide a legal basis for...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Role of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Framing the Indian Constitution

Introduction Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, popularly known as the architect of the Indian Constitution, played a pivotal role in drafting and shaping the fundamental law of independent India. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he was instrumental in laying the foundation of a just, inclusive, and democratic India. His contributions not only ensured legal safeguards for marginalized communities but also established India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. In this blog, we will explore Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to the making of the Indian Constitution, his vision, the challenges he faced, and his lasting impact on Indian democracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Visionary Leader Born on April 14, 1891, Dr. Ambedkar was a social reformer, economist, and legal expert. His early experiences with caste-based discrimination fueled his determination to uplift the downtrodden and establish a legal system based on equality and justice. He earned multiple degrees, includi...
Post a Comment
Read more

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...
Post a Comment
Read more