A view of the Madras High Court in Chennai. File | Photo credit: The Hindu
A Full Bench (consisting of three judges) of the Madras High Court on Thursday (April 2, 2026) ruled that the Governor, whether he likes it or not, is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers in the exercise of powers under Article 161 of the Constitution in matters relating to pardons and early release of convicts.
A bench comprising Justices AD Jagadish Chandira, GK Ilanthiraiyan and Sunder Mohan also ruled that under no circumstances could the Governor exercise any discretion to take a different view than that taken by the Council of Ministers. The Bench was responding to a reference made to it by the Division Bench.
A Division Bench comprising Justices MS Ramesh (retired) and V. Lakshminarayanan referred the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement in September 2025 after encountering two conflicting judgments delivered in 2024 by two other Division Benches of the High Court on the matter.
Answering this reference, the Full Bench agreed with Public Prosecutor Hasan Muhammad Jinnah and Advocate M Radhakrishnan that the issue had been resolved by the Supreme Court of VR Krishna Iyer, YV Chandrachud, PN Bhagwati, Syed Murtaza Fazalali and AD Koshal of the Supreme Court as early as 1980.
Mr. Jinnah also said that the 1980 judgment given in the Maru Ramu case was followed by the Supreme Court in 2022 when it ordered the release of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi convicted in the AG Perarivalan assassination case. He also relied on the Supreme Court’s 1974 verdict in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab.
Agreeing with his contention, the Full Bench said, the apex court has consistently held that the Governor cannot exercise any discretion in the exercise of powers under Article 161 of the Constitution, and this was reflected in its recent decision on the Governor’s power to withhold bills passed by the State Legislature.
Also read | Disproportionate assets case against A. Raj: Madras High Court seeks CBI’s reply
One of the divisions of the Supreme Court correctly followed the law while the other wrongly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in MP Special Police Establishment case of 2003 which related to the statutory function of the Governor to sanction the prosecution of ministers in cases of corruption.
The Full Bench further pointed out that the Supreme Court gave its verdict in the AG Perarivalana case only after considering the MP Special Police Establishment case.
Also read | Only Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists must be allowed to contest in SC-reserved constituencies: plea in Madras HC
“Therefore, it is clear that the decision (of one of the Division Benches of the Supreme Court) in Murugan alias Thirumalai Murugan is per incuriam (a judgment passed without regard to the correct legal position) to the limited extent that the decision in MP Special Police Establishment allows the Governor to exercise discretion under Article 16 of the Constitution in the administration of justice,” concluded Chandira.
Published – 02 Apr 2026 17:44 IST
