Back
Framed Under Cannot Be Overridden by Statutory Policy Under CrPC: Supreme Court
In a significant judgment delivered on , the clarified the hierarchy between constitutional and statutory powers regarding the of . A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh ruled that a formulated under the Governor's constitutional powers (Article 161) occupies a higher pedestal and cannot be superseded by a subsequent policy framed strictly under the of the (CrPC).
The Genesis of the Dispute
The appellant, Parveen Kumar (alias Parveen Chauhan), was sentenced to life imprisonment for the
murder of a 12-year-old child. Following his conviction, he sought
after serving 14 years of
, relying on Haryana’s
"Policy Regarding Release of
."
The
, however, rejected his representation. The authorities contended that the appellant was governed by the
"
of
"
policy, which required a more stringent threshold of 20 years of
and 25 years of
. The
dismissed the appellant’s challenge, prompting an appeal to the
.
Legal Arguments: Constitutional vs. Statutory Authority The core of the legal battle rested on the source of authority behind the conflicting policies: - The Appellant’s Stance: The appellant argued that the policy was an exercise of the Governor’s under Article 161. Therefore, it remained independent of and immune to the notification, which was issued under the statutory powers of . - The State’s Stance: The respondent argued that the policy specifically superseded all existing policies, including the guidelines. They placed reliance on the precedent in , which treated both the and policies as statutory in nature.
A Question of Precedent: The '' Ruling The Supreme Court undertook a meticulous review of Haryana’s historical remission policies, noting that the policy mandated that cases be placed before the Governor for orders under Article 161, whereas the policy placed the decision-making power with the Chief Minister under the CrPC.
The Bench critically analyzed the decision in v. Raj Kumar (). It observed that the Raj Kumar ruling held the policy to be merely statutory, thereby failing to account for the larger three-judge Bench decision in v. Jagdish (). The Court declared the Raj Kumar decision to be (decided in ignorance of a binding precedent), noting that Jagdish had already settled that policies rooted in Article 161 cannot be diluted by statutory procedures.
Key Observations The Court made several pivotal observations regarding the exercise of :
-
Distinct :
"It need not be said that a statutory policy... cannot override an exercise of power under Article 161, for that power is distinct and independent, uninfluenced by any other power, more so statutory in nature."
-
Binding Nature of Larger Benches:
Explaining why the earlier
Raj Kumar
judgment was flawed, the Court noted:
"Once the larger Bench had held the materially identical policy to be an exercise of ... the inescapable conclusion would be that the identical later policy [ ] would also be the same."
- Fundamental Expectation: The Court reiterated that a state authority holds an obligation to consider the "" of a convict that their release will be governed by the liberal policies existing at the time of conviction or consideration.
Implications and Future Direction The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the to reconsider the appellant’s application under the policy within four weeks. To avoid administrative instability, the Court specified that this ruling operates prospectively, meaning previously settled remission cases will not be reopened.
This judgment effectively creates a dual-track remission system in Haryana: one governed by the constitutional mandate of Article 161 and another by the of the CrPC. The now faces the task of harmonizing its administrative processes to respect both avenues of executive discretion.
