JUDGMENT : Mangesh S. Patil, J. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioners who are suffering sentences of life imprisonment, respectively, for causing murder and who have undergone more than 22 years of imprisonment including the remission, are seeking remission of remainder of the sentence under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in accordance with the policy of the state government pronounced on 15-03-2010. 3. The Secretary of Home Department (Prison) who is the respondent no. 2 has taken a decision on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and has placed the petitioners in category 5(b) of the 2010 guidelines which prescribes for 26 years of incarceration, whereas the petitioners’ claim that they should have been placed in category 3(b) which provides for 22 years of imprisonment. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that category 5 of 2010 guidelines provided for sub-categories under the head ‘Murder for Political Reasons’, whereas category 3 is provided for the cases relating to murders arising out of land dispute, family feuds, family prestige and superstition, of which sub-category (b) provides for crimes committed with premeditation either individually or by a gang. He would submit that in view of the decision in the matter of State of Haryana V. Jagdish; (2010) 9 SCC 496, the scheme of remission which is beneficial to the prisoner, has to be taken into consideration for grant of remission. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that the facts and circumstances and the evidence before the convicting court indicated that though there was some animosity, may be on account of political rivalry between one of the accused Dagdu Barhate, the incident had taken place without premeditation. When the informant who was the son of the deceased Digambar for whose murder, the petitioners have been convicted, was passing by the side of the residential house of one of the accused - Shantabai, the other accused i.e. petitioners had arrived at the scene only incidentally one after the other and consequently, the motive sought to be attributed to all of them of political rivalry, in-fact, was not the motive and consequently, the petitioners ought not have been placed in category 5(b) which provides for murder for political reasons. 6. 6. Learned APP would support the order under challenge. He would point out the observations of the trial court reproduced in the impugned order attributing political rivalry as the motive. He would also refer to the observations of this Court which decided the criminal appeals against conviction of some of the petitioners and also the revision whereby accused no. 3 - Shantabai was acquitted, wherein again there is a discussion regarding the political rivalry. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the papers. 8. We have no manner of doubt that the entire process of grant of remission undertaken by the respondents is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments. The impugned order is illegal for variety of reasons as we would point out herein-after. 9. Suffice for the purpose to observe that the impugned order merely refers to the opinion expressed by the convicting court submitted under section 432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In-fact, the reference to it can be found in the column of references just above the order. The entire order does not refer to any opinion, much less seeks to undertake any exercise of application of mind to the views expressed by the convicting court under that provision. Surprisingly, the impugned order refers to some observations of the convicting court in its judgment and order whereby petitioners were convicted, to arrive at the conclusion regarding the motive attributable to the petitioners. 10. It is important to note that after taking into consideration various judgments operating in the field, namely, Sangeet V. State of Haryana; (2013) 2 SCC 452 , Union of India Vs. Sriharan @ Murugan; (2014) 11 SCC 1 , State of Haryana Vs. Mohinder Singh; (2000) 3 SC 394, Bhagwat Saran Vs. State of U.P.; (1983) 1 SCC 389, Laxman Naskar V. State of West Bengal and another; (2000) 7 SCC 626 , the Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Chander V. State of Chhattisgarh; (2022) 12 SCC 52 , has examined all the relevant aspects and importantly has even disagreed with the view of Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Yovehel V. State of Maharashtra; 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1318, which held that the opinion expressed under section 432(2) of the Cr.P.C. was binding on the government. It has been laid down in Ram Chander (supra) that the opinion of the Presiding Judge under section 432(2) of the Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality. The opinion should be accompanied by reasons and cannot be a mechanical process. It emphasized the directions in the matter of Sangeet (supra), which in turn gives the details as to what circumstances the Presiding Judge is expected to bear in mind while submitting a report under section 432(2). It has also been held that such an opinion of the Presiding Judge may not be binding on the State. 11. Ram Chander (supra) further expects the state to take into consideration the police report on the parameters laid down in the matter of Laxman Naskar (supra). In the process, it has also been held that though it is the prerogative of the state government to grant remission under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the decision is subject to judicial review and the courts have power to determine whether rejection of the application for remission is arbitrary. However, simultaneously, it has been observed that the power of judicial review in an appropriate case does not empower the courts to grant remission. If the courts find that the decision is arbitrary, it can remit the matter back for decision by the state to reconsider the case afresh. 12. Bearing in mind these principles, the opinion of the convicting court submitted under section 432(2), dated 17-12-2018 clearly ignores the law laid down in the matter of Sangeet. In paragraph no. 1, facts have been narrated and in the second and concluding paragraph, it has been simply observed that the petitioner’s case fell under category 5(a) of 2010 guidelines. 13. Similarly, as has been cursorily observed herein-above, the impugned order not even refers to the opinion expressed by the Presiding Judge in this report under section 432(2) of Cr.P.C., which clearly demonstrates that the respondents no. 1 and 2 and particularly, the latter who has actually passed the order has treated the report under section 432(2) as a merely formality and the order has been passed de hors the opinion expressed in that report and taking into consideration and reproducing some portion from the judgment whereby the petitioners were convicted. 14. In view of such state-of-affairs, the impugned order is grossly illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 14. In view of such state-of-affairs, the impugned order is grossly illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside. However, considering the limited scope of the powers vested in this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot independently undertake any exercise to ascertain if the petitioners are entitled to any remission and if yes, under which category. 15. The writ petition is partly allowed. 16. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. 17. The matter is remitted to the stage of submission of report under section 432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The convicting court shall reconsider the matter and submit a fresh report under section 432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, bearing in mind the principles laid down in the matter of Ram Chander and Sangeet (supra). 18. The report shall be forwarded by the convicting court to the respondent no. 2 within four weeks from today and the respondent no.2 shall thereafter pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made in Ram Chander (supra) within four weeks of receipt of the report under section 432 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 19. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 20. The Registry shall immediately communicate this order to the convicting court, for compliance.