2007 Supreme(SC) 1427

2007(8) Supreme 89
Supreme Court of india
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
State of Haryana — Petitioner
versus
Mahender Singh & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (crl.) 30 of 2005
Decided on : 02-11-2007
with
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2005

important points
No convict has a fundamental right of remission or shortening of sentences.
The entitlement of a convict conferred by statutory rules cannot be taken away by executive instructions.

Headnote:(a)Prisons Act, 1894 – Section 59 (5) r/w Rules 20 and 21 made thereunder – State is entitled to take a prison policy as contra-distinguished from a sentencing policy – Power of the State to issue general instructions, so that no discrimination is made, is also permissible in law – The State by successive executive instructions finally classifying the life convicts having regard to the number of deaths which might have taken place at their hands – Any existing executive instructions could be substituted by issuing fresh executive instructions for processing the cases of lifers for premature release but once issued these must be uniformly and invariably applied to all cases of lifers so as to avoid the charge of discrimination under Article 14 – Impugned High Court judgment not sustainable. (Paras 21, 22, 25, 30 and 36)

       (1984) 2 SCC 310 – Relied upon.

       (b)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 432 and 433A – No convict has a fundamental right of remission or shortening of sentences – Remission schemes however offer healthy motivation for better behaviour, inner improvement and development of social fibre – Remission and short sentencing scheme provides for good guidelines for exercise of pardon power, a jurisdiction meant to be used as often and as systematically as possible and not to be abused.(Paras 23, 25 and 29)

       (1981) 1 SCC 107 – Relied upon.

       (c)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 433 r/w section 54 and 55, IPC – Section 433 provides for power to commute sentence – It is prospective in its application.(Paras 23 and 31)

       (1990) 2 SCC 661; (1990) 2 SCC 701; (1995) 5 SCC 187 – Relied upon.

       (d)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 433A – Although no convict can be said to have any constitutional right for obtaining remission in his sentence, he in view of the policy decision itself must be held to have a right to be considered therefor. (Para 32)

       (1976) 1 SCC 817 – Relied upon.

       (e)Administrative Law – Well-settled that any guidelines which do not have any statutory flavour cannot have the force of a statute – They are subservient to the legislative act and the statutory rules – Therefore wherever a policy decision is made, persons must be treated equally in terms thereof.(Paras 32, 33)

       (1981) 1 SCC 166; (1988) 4 SCC 364; 1990 (Supp) SCC 440; 2007 (7) SCALE 737 – Relied upon.

       (f)Administrative Law – If the Punjab Rules are applicable in the State of Haryana in view of the State Reorganisation Act, no executive instruction would prevail over them – The Rules having defined ‘convicts’ in terms whereof a ‘life convict’ was entitled to have his case considered within the parameters laid down therein, the same cannot be taken away by reason of an executive instruction by redefining the term ‘life convict’.(Para 34)

       (2006) 8 SCC 161; (2005) 7 SCC 417 – Distinguished.

       Facts of the case:

       1. Respondents herein are life convicts. They were chargesheeted for commission of an offence of murder of Ran Singh, Rattan Singh and Satbir Singh. They have been found guilty thereof by a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.01.1988. Their appeals before the High Court as also the Supreme Court were dismissed.

       2. The State of Haryana, however, formulated a policy in regard to pre-mature release of life convicts in terms whereof the cases for remission were required to be considered after completion of 10 years of actual imprisonment and 14 years including remission. The said policy, however, was reformulated on or about 12.04.2002, making a classification among life convicts based on the number of murders.

       3. The writ petition preferred by the respondents questioning the constitutionality of the said policy decision has been allowed by the High Court on the premise that no discrimination could be made inter se amongst the life convicts; all of them being similarly situated and, thus, the purported classification on the ground of number of murders was arbitrary and discriminatory.

       Findings of the Court:

       High Court judgment that the State has no power to make any classification at all is not sustainable.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.