Introduction:
The Gujarat High Court has once again reinforced the supremacy of law and the principle that no authority, irrespective of its rank, can act beyond its powers. In a case that combined constitutional interpretation, principles of criminal justice, and the distinction between remission and pardon, the Court canceled the premature release of a murder convict, Aniruddhsinh Mahipatsinh Jadeja, who had been illegally set free in 2018 based on a letter issued by the then Additional DGP (Jail). The case was brought before the Court by Sorathiya Hareshbhai Rameshbhai, the grandson of former MLA Popatbhai Sorathiya, who was brutally shot dead in 1989 by Jadeja during an Independence Day flag-hoisting ceremony in Gondal.
Justice Hasmukh Suthar, delivering a comprehensive 90-page judgment, declared the release unlawful, describing it as a clear abuse of power, a colorable exercise of authority, and a gross violation of constitutional provisions. Quoting from the Brihadaranyakopanishad at the very outset, the Court reminded that “Law is the king of kings, far more powerful and right than they; nothing can be mightier than law, by whose aid, as by that of the highest monarch, even the weak may prevail over the strong.” The Court castigated the State for its silence, calling it complicit in allowing the pardon letter to stand unchallenged for years. This judgment not only highlights the limits of executive authority but also clarifies the difference between remission and pardon while emphasizing the importance of rule of law in safeguarding justice.
Plaintiff’s Arguments:
The petitioner, grandson of slain MLA Popatbhai Sorathiya, approached the Court in 2018 challenging the premature release of Jadeja. He argued that the release was not only arbitrary but also patently illegal, as it was granted by an authority that lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner recounted the events leading to his grandfather’s murder during the Independence Day ceremony in 1989, stressing the gravity of the crime and the fact that Jadeja was convicted by the Supreme Court in 1997 after being initially acquitted by the sessions court. Jadeja was sentenced to life imprisonment, but his eventual release in 2018 was obtained through dubious means.
The petitioner contended that the Additional DGP (Jail) had no power to grant remission, let alone pardon. He submitted that remission of sentences was governed strictly under the 2017 Government Circular, which allowed remission of life sentences only for those convicts who had completed 12 years of imprisonment, subject to conditions and after recommendations from the Advisory Board. Jadeja had not been granted this benefit in 2017, yet in January 2018, his son applied directly to the Additional DGP (Jail), who, without verifying records or following procedure, immediately directed the Junagadh Jail Superintendent to release Jadeja.
The petitioner argued that this amounted to a blatant misuse of authority and undermined the rule of law. He further stressed that remission and pardon are fundamentally different—remission reduces the term of imprisonment without absolving guilt, while pardon wipes away the conviction entirely and can only be granted under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution by the President or the Governor. By issuing a letter using the term Rajya Mafi (State Pardon), the Additional DGP acted as though he possessed constitutional powers, which he did not.
The petitioner also criticized the State Government for its silence, pointing out that despite being aware of the illegality, the State neither recalled the letter nor challenged the release. This, according to him, demonstrated the State’s complicity. The petitioner insisted that justice demanded accountability, both from the erring officer and the government, and that the release of Jadeja must be annulled to restore public faith in the justice system.
Defendant’s Arguments:
On the other hand, the defense sought to justify the release by placing reliance on the 2017 Government Circular. The defense claimed that the circular was intended to grant remission benefits to convicts who had completed significant portions of their sentences. They argued that Jadeja had already served more than 18 years in prison by 2018, thereby satisfying the eligibility criteria. The Additional DGP, they claimed, was merely acting as the controlling authority of prisons and was within his administrative rights to direct the Jail Superintendent accordingly.
The defense further argued that the Additional DGP’s letter was not an exercise of constitutional power under Article 161 but an administrative communication to process remission in terms of the government’s policy. They attempted to downplay the significance of the term Rajya Mafi used in the letter, insisting that the intention was not to absolve Jadeja of guilt but to extend the benefit of remission. According to the defense, it was ultimately for the Jail Superintendent to apply the circular’s conditions, and the Additional DGP’s role was advisory or supervisory.
They also contended that Jadeja had already undergone a substantial portion of his sentence, and therefore, his release did not subvert the ends of justice. The defense implied that reopening the matter years later was unnecessary, as Jadeja had been living as a free man since 2018.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Hasmukh Suthar carefully examined the records, the circular, the authority of the officer, and the constitutional provisions. The Court held that the Additional DGP (Jail) had acted entirely without jurisdiction. He was neither the “appropriate government” under the law nor vested with powers under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution to grant pardon. The Court noted that his functions were limited to administrative control of prisons under the Jail Manual and did not extend to decisions on remission or pardon.
The Court drew a sharp distinction between remission and pardon. Remission, it explained, is a reduction in the duration of the sentence without altering its character; the convict remains guilty, but serves a shorter term. Pardon, on the other hand, wipes away the conviction and its consequences, and such power is reserved exclusively for the President and Governor, exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. By using the word Rajya Mafi in his letter, the Additional DGP had effectively granted a pardon, which he had no power to do. The Court called this action “a colorable exercise of power” and “nothing but abuse of authority.”
The Court further observed that even if the officer believed remission was due, the correct procedure would have been to forward the application to the appropriate government for consideration by the Advisory Board. Instead, he bypassed every safeguard and ordered release on the same day the application was filed, treating the application of Jadeja’s son as “gospel truth.”
Turning to the State’s role, the Court was scathing in its criticism. It noted that the State was fully aware of the illegality but chose not to act. Neither was the pardon letter recalled, nor was it challenged. This silence, the Court said, “speaks volumes” and demonstrates complicity. The Court recalled earlier proceedings where it was noted that Jadeja, despite being in jail, attended election rallies—further evidence of systemic failure and political interference.
The judgment went beyond the technicalities of remission and pardon to stress the importance of rule of law. Justice Suthar observed that justice is not merely about the rights of the convict but also about the rights of the victims and society. The Court emphasized that law must remain supreme, quoting the ancient text: “Be You So High, Law Is Above You.”
Ultimately, the Court allowed the petition, canceled Jadeja’s premature release, and directed him to surrender by September 18. It underscored that justice demands adherence to procedure and that no one, not even powerful convicts or senior officers, can place themselves above the law.