EPURU SUDHAKAR AND ANR. versus GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.

EPURU SUDHAKAR AND ANR. versus GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.

Irrelevant and extraneous material entered the decision-making process for remission; facts about pendency of criminal cases not disclosed properly; the order granting remission is unsustainable and set aside; but the State may treat the petition as pending for re-consideration and Governor can make further enquiries as necessary.

Parties
Petitioner: Epuru Sudhakar; Epuru Chinna Ramasubbaiah (deceased); Petitioner: Petitioner No.2 (son of late Sh. Tirupati Reddy); Respondent No.2: Gowru Venkata Reddy; Respondent No.1: Government of Andhra Pradesh; Respondent No.3: Respondent No.3 (wife of respondent No.2)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition partly allowed; impugned remission order set aside.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Pardon/remission, Executive Clemency, Rule of Law, Remission and Pardon Power Under Articles 72 and 161
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Judicial Review of Pardon/remission Executive Clemency Rule of Law Remission and Pardon Power Under Articles 72 and 161

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Epuru Sudhakar

Petitioner

Epuru Chinna Ramasubbaiah (deceased)

Petitioner No.2 (son of late Sh. Tirupati Reddy)

Petitioner

Gowru Venkata Reddy

Respondent No.2

Government of Andhra Pradesh

Respondent No.1

Respondent No.3 (wife of respondent No.2)

Respondent No.3

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exercise of pardon/remission power under Articles 72 and 161 is subject to judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the grant of remission to respondent No.2 was based on irrelevant and extraneous material
  3. 3 Whether the order granting remission is sustainable

Ratio Decidendi

Irrelevant and extraneous material entered the decision-making process for remission; facts about pendency of criminal cases not disclosed properly; the order granting remission is unsustainable and set aside; but the State may treat the petition as pending for re-consideration and Governor can make further enquiries as necessary.

Court Disposition

Petition partly allowed; impugned remission order set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned order granting remission to respondent No.2 is set aside.
  • It is open to the Governor to make further enquiries as necessary to ascertain relevant factors.