Nalini’s plea to direct Guv on release quashed
The bench pointed out that Article 361 of the Constitution insulates the Governor from being questioned or make him answerable before any court with regard to the discharge of his official duties.
Published: 19th July 2019 04:22 AM
Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict Nalini (File | EPS)
By Express News Service
CHENNAI: A division bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday refused to direct the Governor to affix his approval on the recommendations dated September 9, 2018, of the State cabinet for release of Nalini, a life convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. Accepting the contentions of Advocate-General Vijay Narayan, a bench of Justices R Subbiah and C Saravanan dismissed the writ petition from Nalini.
The bench pointed out that Article 361 of the Constitution insulates the Governor from being questioned or make him answerable before any court with regard to the discharge of his official duties. It gives complete immunity and privilege to him in the discharge of his constitutional obligations.
“Therefore, questioning the discharge of the act of the Governor or failure to discharge his constitutional obligations cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution by arraying him as a party to the writ proceedings,” the bench said.
The bench pointed out that Article 361 of the Constitution insulates the Governor from being questioned or make him answerable before any court with regard to the discharge of his official duties.
Published: 19th July 2019 04:22 AM
Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict Nalini (File | EPS)
By Express News Service
CHENNAI: A division bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday refused to direct the Governor to affix his approval on the recommendations dated September 9, 2018, of the State cabinet for release of Nalini, a life convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. Accepting the contentions of Advocate-General Vijay Narayan, a bench of Justices R Subbiah and C Saravanan dismissed the writ petition from Nalini.
The bench pointed out that Article 361 of the Constitution insulates the Governor from being questioned or make him answerable before any court with regard to the discharge of his official duties. It gives complete immunity and privilege to him in the discharge of his constitutional obligations.
“Therefore, questioning the discharge of the act of the Governor or failure to discharge his constitutional obligations cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution by arraying him as a party to the writ proceedings,” the bench said.
No comments:
Post a Comment