JUDGMENT : S.H.A. RAZA, J. 1. A common question of facts and law arises in all these writ petitions, which have been filed by the convicts who have completed more than thirty years of sentence with remission on 15th August, 1995 praying that they may be ordered to be released In pursuance of the Government Order No. 2879/22.2.1994-8(48)/94 (Home (Prison) Anubhag-2, dated 25th July, 1994. Most of the convicts were sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment for committing an offence Under Sections 302/201, I.P.C. and other offences punishable under Indian Penal Code. 2. The aforesaid Government Order has been issued in the name of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of his powers contained in Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Similar orders were issued by the Government Order No. 4170/22.2.1994-18(82)/94 (Home Prison) Anubhag-2, dated 25th October, 1994 which provided that these convicts who have completed on 2nd October, 1994 a sentence of twenty five years with remission and their conduct in Jail has been found to be good, shall be released on ball. The said Government Orders were subjected to following terms and conditions: 1. Only those prisoners shall be released who have been convicted by the Courts in Uttar Pradesh and the State Government was empowered to release them. 2. The following prisoners shall not be entitled for release: (a) Whose appeal or revision were pending in any Court on 15th August, 1994 or on 15th August, 1994 they were released on bail under the order passed by the Court. (b) The prisoner who is the resident of any foreign country, if there existed any doubt about the citizenship of that prisoner then in that situation before releasing him, it would be necessary to get the matter verified through the District Magistrate or Superintendent of Police. (c) The prisoners who have been convicted by the Court Marshal. (d) Persons detained. (e) The Prisoners convicted for committing an offence under Foreigner's Act and Indian Passport Act. (f) Prisoners convicted under the provisions of Sections 3 to 10 of the Officers Secret Act, 1967. (g) Prisoners convicted Under Sections 2 and 3 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and convicted for committing on offence Under Sections 121 to 131 of Indian Penal Code. (h) Habitual convicts. (f) Prisoners convicted under the provisions of Sections 3 to 10 of the Officers Secret Act, 1967. (g) Prisoners convicted Under Sections 2 and 3 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and convicted for committing on offence Under Sections 121 to 131 of Indian Penal Code. (h) Habitual convicts. (i) Convicts/Detenu under the provisions of Sections 106 to 110, Code of Civil Procedure (j) Prisoners convicted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 amended from time to time and convicts undergoing sentence for committing offences Under Sections S. 9, 10 and 11 of the Indian Penal Code. (k) Convicts sentenced for committing an offence to outrage the modesty of ladies through force. 3. It was argued very vehemently on behalf of the Petitioners that the said Government Order is manifestly unjust, unfair and unreasonable. If a person has been awarded life sentence for committing a murder Under Sections 302, I.P.C. and has also been punished for committing an offence causing disappearance of evidence of the offence Under Sections 201. I.P.C. and they had underwent the punishment for committing an offence Under Sections 201, I.P.C, say for a period of three years, to ten years, and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, then ii would be unfair to deny them the benefit of the Government Order. It was submitted that when a person who has committed a murder, which is the most heinous crime, could be ordered to be released, while the other person who has also been convicted for minor offences, along with the murder and had undergone the sentence cannot be released. 4. It was submitted that in most of the offences, which have been included In the Government Order, a life sentence cannot be awarded, hence its mention, was not at all proper. It seems that the State Government in a most mechanical, casual and cursory manner, issued the present Government Order, hence all those terms and conditions, which have been enforced in the Government Order, deserves to be ignored or quashed, and the Petitioners be ordered to be released forthwith as they have completed more than twenty five years or thirty years' sentence in jail, on the relevant date mentioned in the G.O. as their conduct in jail was good throughout. 5. 5. A. perusal of the Government Order reveals that the aforesaid G.O. was issued in the name of Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of his constitutional powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. While suspending, remitting or committing a sentence, the Governor acts under a constitutional power and the manner of exercise of that power depends upon his discretion. The power is of widest amplitude and is absolute, which has been conferred by the Constitution and is not subject to statutory provision and as held in the case of Kehar Singh and Another vs. Union of India and Another, (1989) 1 SCC 204 , the Court cannot suggest, even guidelines to the Governor, because it is presumed that the Governor has acted properly after an objective consideration, while commuting a sentence. The power of the Court Is limited and only in exceptional cases where the reasons given by the Governor are irrelevant or where the exercise of power is vitiated by self-denial on appreciation of the full amplitude of the power conferred, the Court can interfere. 6. Although, we have found that certain prohibitory conditions in the aforesaid Government Orders are irrelevant, Instead of ignoring or quashing the same, we are of the view that the State Government should have a fresh look over the said Government Order, which may rectify, amend or delete certain prohibitory terms and conditions, which are irrelevant and not germane to the intention of the Government Order to release the convicts who have completed more than twenty five or thirty years of sentence with remission whose conduct has been good in jail. 7. In Harbans Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1982) 2 SCC 101 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is not permissible for the Supreme Court to recommend to the President that in such a case, he may exercise his powers under Article 72 of the Constitution of India, which is pari-materia to the power of the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. 8. The main object and purpose of the Government Order is that those persons who have completed more than twenty five years or thirty years of sentence on the Independence Day i.e. 2nd October be released. 8. The main object and purpose of the Government Order is that those persons who have completed more than twenty five years or thirty years of sentence on the Independence Day i.e. 2nd October be released. Mention of the dates of Independence of this Country and birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, who was a symbol of compassion, mercy, clemency and non-violence, is of paramount importance. 9. The power of clemency exercised by the Governor, we are of the view, should not be restricted to irrelevant considerations. It is a matter of common knowledge for the students of history that when the father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi undertook a fast in Calcutta, after the dawn of Independence, to generate the atmosphere of harmony and peace in the communal torn metropolis during the worst disturbances, several discard criminals who committed murders, surrendered their arms before him. Mercy and clemency often mould the nature of a man. 10. The Constitution-makers have vested with the President of India under Article 72 and the Governor of a State under Article 161 vast powers to suspend, remit or commute a sentence awarded to a person by any Court, including Court Marshal. No doubt, the Court cannot issue any direction to the President or the Governor to exercise that power for a particular person or a group of persons, but it can certainly recommend to the President or the Governor to exercise his power in appropriate cases. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, we direct the Chief Secretary of the State to place before the Governor of Uttar Pradesh a copy of this judgment to enable him to consider the cases of the Petitioners afresh in accordance with the provisions of Article 161 of the Constitution of India and pass appropriate orders. These petitions are accordingly disposed of. We also direct the Chief Secretary of the State to have a fresh look into the impugned Government Orders and may amend or rectify or delete certain clauses in the said orders.