The Supreme Court has ruled that a remission policy framed by a state government under the Governor's powers under Article 161 of the Constitution shall override a statutory policy framed under the provisions of the CrPC. A bench led by Justice Sanjay Karol on Wednesday held that Haryana's 2002 remission policy, based on the Governor's constitutional power, will hold the field despite the state framing a new policy in 2008 using its statutory powers under Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC.
Constitutional power prevails over statutory policy
Writing the judgment for the bench, which also included Justice N Kotiswar Singh, Justice Karol stated: “Since the 2002 policy stood framed under the Constitution and such power is to be exercised by the Governor himself, the subsequent Policy of 2008 cannot deter the effect of the former and the observation that it supersedes the 2002 policy is untenable in law.” The bench emphasized that a statutory policy cannot override an exercise of power under Article 161, as that power is distinct and independent, uninfluenced by any other power, more so statutory in nature.
The top court clarified that its findings in this case shall apply prospectively and shall not operate to reopen any applications for remissions that had already been decided. “In effect, now the respondent state shall have two distinct and separate policies functioning. How it is that the state wants to proceed further is for them to decide,” the bench said.
Case background: Parveen Kumar's remission plea
The ruling came on a petition filed by Parveen Kumar alias Parveen Chauhan, who sought remission under the 2002 policy. Chauhan was convicted for the murder of a 12-year-old child on January 4, 2009, in connection with FIR No. 670 of 2007 dated September 25, 2007, lodged at PS City, Gurgaon. He was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, five years under Section 365 IPC, and two years under Section 201 IPC. The Punjab and Haryana High Court on July 16, 2013 partly allowed his appeal, setting aside the conviction under Section 365 IPC. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal against the high court's judgment on September 15, 2015.
On May 26, 2022, Chauhan filed a representation seeking release based on the 2002 policy, having served 14 years of actual imprisonment. Receiving no response, he filed a writ petition, which was disposed on August 16, 2022, directing prison authorities to decide within three months. The authorities rejected his representation on October 20, 2022, stating his case would be governed by the 2008 policy, under which he had completed only 13 years 7 months and 16 days of actual imprisonment and 16 years 5 months and 16 days of total imprisonment as of September 21, 2022, thus not eligible for remission as he had not completed the requisite 20 years of actual sentence and 25 years of total sentence.
High court dismissed plea, Supreme Court allows appeal
Chauhan then filed another writ petition challenging the decision, relying on State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2008). The high court dismissed his petition. The Supreme Court allowed his appeal, directing the Haryana Government to take a decision on his remission application consistent with this judgment within four weeks. The court ordered: “Let a copy be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, by the Registry of this Court within four days for onward action to be taken by the appropriate authority.”
