Download Legal Challenges Faced by a Chief Minister in Jail and Plea Bargaining in Indian Law and more Schemes and Mind Maps Law in PDF only on Docsity!
1. Can a CM Run the Government from Jail?
Legal Position and Practical Challenges
Arrest Does Not Disqualify :
o The arrest of a sitting CM does not automatically disqualify them from functioning. Legally, they continue to hold the position.
o However, practical difficulties arise due to the unique circumstances of governing from jail.
Practical Difficulties :
o A CM in custody can only perform tasks permitted under the jail manual.
o Presiding over cabinet meetings, consulting with officers, and reviewing files become challenging unless explicitly allowed by the court.
o The CM’s ability to govern effectively is significantly curtailed.
Legal Provisions and Kejriwal’s Case
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (Section 8(3)) :
o A sitting MP or state legislator is disqualified for six years upon conviction for an offense punishable by imprisonment of at least two years.
o Kejriwal is yet to be convicted, which means he retains his position as CM.
o Case Law : In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)^1 , the Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of MPs and MLAs upon conviction, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the purity of legislative bodies.
Withdrawal from Prosecution (Section 321 of CrPC) :
o This provision empowers the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution with the court’s consent before judgment is pronounced.
o While not directly related to a CM’s functioning, it highlights the legal flexibility available to the prosecution.
o Case Law : In State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980)^2 , the Supreme Court clarified that the Public Prosecutor’s discretion to withdraw from prosecution is subject to judicial scrutiny.
Options for AAP and Legal Challenges
Imposition of President’s Rule :
(^1) Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)7 SCC 653 (^2) State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub 1980 SCC (3) 57
o Kejriwal’s insistence on running the government from jail could potentially lead to the imposition of President’s Rule.
o Article 356 of the Constitution empowers the President to dissolve a state government if the constitutional machinery breaks down.
o The CM’s multi fold tasks cannot be practically performed while in custody, affecting governance.
o Case Law : In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)^3 , the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for imposing President’s Rule, emphasizing the need for objective assessment and judicial review.
Legal Challenges :
o Whether arrest alone (distinct from conviction) should force a resignation may end up before the courts.
o Kejriwal has challenged his arrest and remand before the Delhi High Court, emphasizing the legal complexities.
o Case Law : In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)^4 , the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of basic structure, ensuring that fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered even by constitutional amendments.
2. Plea Bargaining and Concept of Approver
Plea Bargaining
Definition :
o Plea bargaining is an agreement between the accused and the victim.
o The accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense (or one of multiple offenses) in exchange for lenient sentencing, recommendations, or dismissal of other charges.
o Legal Provisions : Sections 265A-265L of the CrPC deal with plea bargaining.
o Case Law : While there isn't a specific case related to Mr. Kejriwal, the landmark case of Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra (1976)^5 establishes the recognition of plea bargaining in Indian law. It illustrates how this process can expedite legal proceedings and reduce the burden on the courts.
Approver
Similarity to Plea Bargaining :
o The process of turning an approver shares similarities with traditional plea bargaining.
(^3) S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 (^4) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 (^5) Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 3 SCC 684
Exceptions :
o The President can even grant pardons for death sentences.
o However, the President’s exercise of this power is subject to certain limitations.
Case Law: Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989)^7
Background :
o Kehar Singh was convicted of offenses under Sections 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
o His death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the President.
Legal Issues and Ruling :
o The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973.
o Section 433-A, as indicated from 18th December 1978, prescribes a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment for certain types of lifers.
o The petitioners challenged Section 433-A, alleging violations of Articles 14, 20(1), 72, and 161 of the Constitution.
o The court ruled that Section 433-A is constitutionally valid.
o The power under Article 72 is to be exercised on the advice of the Central Government, and the President is bound by such advice.
o The court emphasized that the President’s decision should be based on objective criteria, justice, and constitutional principles.
Governor’s Pardoning Power (Article 161)
Scope and Limitations :
o Article 161 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Governor to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment.
o The Governor’s pardoning power is narrower than that of the President under Article
o Exceptions :
The Governor cannot pardon a death sentence.
The Governor cannot grant pardon, reprieve, respite, suspension, remission, or commutation in cases related to court-martial.
o The Governor exercises this power based on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
(^7) Kehar Singh vs. Union of India (1989) 1 SCC 204
Case Law
Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980)^8
Background and Context
Case Details :
o The case involved the constitutional validity of Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). o Section 433-A was introduced by an amendment in 1978. o It prescribed a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment for certain types of lifers. o The petitioners challenged Section 433-A, alleging violations of Articles 14, 20(1), 72, and 161 of the Constitution.
Key Issue :
o The central issue was whether Section 433-A was constitutionally valid and its impact on the President’s and Governor’s pardon powers.
Court’s Ruling and Significance
o The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 433-A.
Key Points :
o The power under Article 72 (President’s pardoning power) is to be exercised on the advice of the Central Government, and the President is bound by such advice. o The court emphasized that the President’s decision should be based on objective criteria, justice, and constitutional principles. o The case clarified the scope and a limitation of the President’s pardoning authority.
Relevance to Governor’s Pardoning Power (Article 161) :
o While the case specifically dealt with the President’s powers, the principles apply to the Governor’s powers as well. o Both Article 72 and Article 161 grant similar pardoning powers, subject to certain exceptions. o The court’s reasoning in Maru Ram case guides the exercise of pardon powers by Governors too.
In Mr. Kejriwal's case, these principles would be relevant if he have to seek clemency from the President or the Governor.
(^8) Maru Ram v. Union of India 1981 SCC (1) 107
