Governor bound by Cabinet’s advice: Madras High Court

A Fleshy Bench (comprising three judges) of the Madras High Court docket, on Thursday (April 2, 2026), held that the Governor, whether he/she likes it or now not, is dash by the recommendation of the council of Ministers whereas exercising powers below Article 161 of the Constitution in issues referring to to remission and premature start of convicts.

The Bench comprising Justices A.D. Jagadish Chandira, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Sunder Mohan furthermore ruled the Governor, below no circumstance, could exercise any discretion whatsoever to rob a determined note from the one taken by the council of Ministers. The Bench used to be answering a reference made to it by a Division Bench.

The Division Bench consisting of Justices M.S. Ramesh (since retired) and V. Lakshminarayanan had referred the topic to the bigger Bench, for an authoritative pronouncement, in September 2025 after discovering two conflicting choices delivered in 2024 by two other Division Benches of the High Court docket on the venture.

While answering the reference, the Fleshy Bench agreed with Express Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah and imply M. Radhakrishnan that the venture had been settled by a Constitution Bench of Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer, Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, Syed Murtaza Fazalali and A.D. Koshal of the Supreme as early as in 1980.

Mr. Jinnah furthermore talked about, the 1980 judgement delivered in Maru Ramu’s case used to be followed by the Supreme Court docket in 2022 too whereas ordering the beginning of musty Top Minister Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan. He furthermore relied upon Supreme Court docket’s 1974 verdict in Shamsher Singh versus Express of Punjab.

After concurring with his submission, the Fleshy Bench talked about, the head court docket had consistently held the Governor could now not exercise any discretion whereas exercising powers below Article 161 of the Constitution and it had been mirrored even in its present resolution on the Governor’s strength to preserve Bills passed by the Express legislature.

Additionally Read | Disproportionate resources case against A. Raja: Madras High Court docket seeks CBI’s response

One amongst the Division Benches of the High Court docket had rightly followed the law, whereas the opposite Bench had wrongly relied upon the Supreme Court docket’s judgment within the 2003 M.P. Special Police Establishment case which used to be connected to the Governor’s statutory characteristic of granting sanction to prosecute Ministers in corruption cases.

The Fleshy Bench additional pointed out the Supreme Court docket had delivered its verdict in A.G. Perarivalan’s case easiest after fascinated with the M.P. Special Police Establishment case.

Additionally Read | Supreme Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists ought to be allowed to contest in SC-reserved constituencies: plea in Madras HC

“Therefore, it’s a long way determined that the ruling (by one of many Division Benches of the High Court docket) in Murugan alias Thirumalai Murugan is per incuriam (a judgement passed with out taking the factual location of law into consideration) to the restricted extent that it holds that the ruling in M.P. Special Police Establishment permits the Governor to act in his bear discretion in exercise of powers below Article 161 of the Constitution,” the Bench led by Justice Chandira concluded.