New Delhi – In a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional limits of gubernatorial powers, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday (April 2, 2026) held that the Governor of a State is strictly bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers (CoM) regarding the premature release of convicts.
The three-judge bench, comprising Justices A.D. Jagadish Chandira, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, and Sunder Mohan, clarified that under Article 161 of the Constitution, the Governor cannot exercise independent discretion to reject or sit over cabinet recommendations, regardless of personal disagreement with the decision.
The Legal Dispute
The ruling came in response to a reference made by a Division Bench in September 2025, which had noticed conflicting views in previous judgments. While one bench had earlier ruled that cabinet advice is binding, another had suggested—relying on a 2003 Supreme Court case (M.P. Special Police Establishment)—that the Governor could act independently if there was apparent bias or irrationality in the cabinet’s decision.
However, the Full Bench today struck down that ambiguity. The court noted:
“Under no circumstance can the Governor exercise discretion to take a different view from the one taken by the Council of Ministers… the Governor is bound by the advice, whether he likes it or not.”
Key Highlights of the Verdict
Settled Law: The Court observed that the law was settled as early as 1980 in the Maru Ram case and reiterated by the Supreme Court in 2022 during the release of A.G. Perarivalan.
Article 161 vs. Discretion: The judges clarified that while the Governor is the formal head of the executive, they are “incapable of acting” except on the aid and advice of the cabinet in matters of remission.
Misapplication of Precedents: The court pointed out that the M.P. Special Police Establishment case (2003) related to the “statutory function” of granting sanction to prosecute ministers, which is distinct from the “constitutional power” of remission under Article 161.
The ‘Per Incuriam’ Ruling
The Full Bench specifically labeled a previous 2024 ruling (Murugan alias Thirumalai Murugan) as per incuriam (decided without due regard to the law), stating it wrongly applied discretionary powers to remission cases.
Why This Matters
This judgment effectively ends the jurisdictional friction between the Tamil Nadu State Government and the Governor’s office over the release of long-term prisoners. It establishes that if the State Cabinet approves a prisoner’s release under a valid remission policy, the Governor’s role is purely formal. Any concerns regarding “irrationality” or “bias” in a cabinet decision are subject to judicial review by the courts, not the personal discretion of the Governor.
The ruling follows a series of petitions, including one by a convict named Eswaran, whose premature release was stalled despite cabinet approval after the Governor rejected the file based on his own assessment of the crime. Source Bar & Bench.
