SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Subramanian Swamy ? Party in Person, and also the learned Advocate General, who has appeared pursuant to notice.

(2.) BY filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as public interest litigation, the petitioner prays that the G. O. (Ms)No. 1155 dated 11. 09. 2008 passed by the Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu should be quashed inasmuch as the said G. O. which purports to release about 1405 prisoners, who are all imprisoned as life convicts, has been issued without following the principles which are inherent in the exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution. The petitioner submits that he himself was Union Minister for Commerce, Law and Justice and as a member of public was actively associated in the past in matters of public administration. He submits that the act of the Government in this case calls for scrutiny by the Court. The petitioner has also pointed out that the second respondent?s name may be deleted from the array of parties, since according to him the second respondent has been added by way of mistake. In view of this, submission the second respondent is deleted from the array of parties.

(3.) BY referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Epuru Sudhakar and Another Vs. Govt. of A. P. and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 161) the petitioner argues that in the said decision Justice S. H. Kapadia, in a different but concurring opinion, pointed out the parameters of exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution, and in laying down the parameters, the learned Judge held that the power has to be exercised for public welfare and it cannot be merely an act of grace by the repository of such power, since the power is a constitutional power and is in public domain. The petitioner argues that going by these standards set by the Apex Court, the power exercised in the instant case cannot be sustained, since there is no whisper of public welfare in the body of the order. On the other hand, the order specifically referred to the welfare of the prisoners. Therefore, the order reads like one, as if it has been passed out of private grace and as one by way of bounty by the State.