ORDER : 1. This petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed by the petitioner alleging that there was wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in releasing the petitioner in accordance with the order passed by this Court on 30.07.2014 in H.C.P.(MD)No.793 of 2014, directing application of G.O.Ms.No.1155/Home (Pri IV) Department/2009, dated 11.09.2008 and to release him forthwith. 2. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: "37. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to apply the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.1155/Home (Pri. IV) Department/2009, dated 11.09.2008, to the case of the petitioner, release him forthwith, if his presence is not required in connection with any other case." 3. After the said order came to be passed, the State did not prefer any appeal and the petitioner was also not released prematurely, as directed by this Court in the said order. Hence, the petitioner chose to file the present petition for contempt. 4. After the filing of the Contempt Petition, the petitioner was released on 26.11.2015 vide G.O.Ms.No.851, Home (Prison IV) Department, exercising the power conferred on the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India by remitting the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on the petitioner who was the Life Convict Prisoner No.98748 subject to a rider that in case W.P.No.22616 of 2008 filed by Dr.Subramania Swamy challenging the validity of G.O.Ms.No. 1155, Home (Pri IV) Department/2009, dated 11.09.2008 is allowed, the order of premature release will be recalled and that the detenu would have to go back to prison once again. Despite the fact that the petitioner was released in accordance with the order passed by this Court in the above said Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner has shown inclination to pursue the Contempt Petition. 5. On the other hand, it is the submission of the respondents that they were caught between the devil and the deep sea, in view of the interim order dated 09.07.2014 made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition(s)(Criminal)No(s).48 of 2014, restraining the State Governments from exercising the power of remission to life convicts, the operative part of which order reads as follows: "In the meanwhile, the State Governments are restrained from exercising power of remission to life convicts." 6. It is the further contention of the respondents that if at all the order passed by this Court in the Habeas Corpus Petition was given effect to, it would have amounted to a contempt as violation of an interim order of the Supreme Court and that on the other hand, the non-compliance with the order in the Habeas Corpus Petition is now projected as contempt of this Court. However, steps were taken for getting necessary directions from the Supreme Court in cases, like the one, that is on hand. Accordingly, the Constitution Bench, by an order dated 23.07.2015, modified the earlier interim order dated 09.07.2014 by making the following observation: "4. Accordingly, we modify our order dated 09.07.2014, whereby we had restrained the State Governments from exercising power of remission or commutation to life convicts. The said order dated 09.07.2014 shall only apply to cases: (1) where life sentence has been awarded specifying that:- (a) the convict shall undergo life sentence till the end of his life without remission or commutation; (b) the convict shall not be released by granting remission or commutation till he completes a fixed term such as 20 years or 25 years or like. (ii) where no application for remission or commutation was preferred, or considered suo motu by the concerned State Governments/authorities. (iii) where the investigation was conducted by any Central Investigating Agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation. (iv) where the life sentence is under any central law or under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or any other similar offence". 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the prohibitory order would be applicable only to the four categories of cases mentioned above and that in respect of other cases, the Governors of the States are entitled to exercise the powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. 8. On receipt of the copy of the said order of the Supreme Court on 28.07.2015, the Government applied the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.1155/Home (Pri IV) Department/2009, dated 11.09.2008 and passed an order on 26.11.2015 vide G.O.Ms.No. 851, Home (Prison IV) Department, prematurely releasing the convict viz., the petitioner. 8. On receipt of the copy of the said order of the Supreme Court on 28.07.2015, the Government applied the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.1155/Home (Pri IV) Department/2009, dated 11.09.2008 and passed an order on 26.11.2015 vide G.O.Ms.No. 851, Home (Prison IV) Department, prematurely releasing the convict viz., the petitioner. However, the fact remains that even after the receipt of the copy of the order of the Supreme Court, nearly four months time was taken by the Government to comply with the direction issued by this Court in its order dated 30.07.2014 in the Habeas Corpus Petition [H.C.P.(MD)No.793 of 2014]. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that as the order of the Supreme Court dated 23.07.2015 was to the effect that the interim order of the Supreme Court dated 09.07.2014 would not prevent the exercise of the power of the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, file had to be prepared and circulated and after obtaining the approval of the Governor, the Government Order came to be passed and that in the said process, such time came to be consumed. In any event, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the same cannot be construed to be a deliberate act of violation of the order of this Court and hence, the same will not amount to contempt. 10. Now the first respondent (the Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prison) Department has filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology, if the delay caused could be viewed as an act of contempt. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said affidavit will satisfy the petitioner and that the same may be accepted and the respondents be purged of the contempt. 12. Accordingly, the said affidavit is accepted and the Contempt Petition is closed. Consequently, the connected Sub-Application is also closed.