Back
SC Rules Art 161 Prevails Over Haryana Policy
In a landmark verdict concerning the rights of , the of India has clarified the hierarchy between Constitutional powers and statutory regulations regarding . The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, ruled that the 'Policy Regarding Release of ,' which operates under , cannot be overridden by the subsequent ' of ' policy, which is .
Case Background
The appellant, Parveen Kumar, was convicted for the murder of a 12-year-old child and sentenced to life imprisonment in . After serving over of actual imprisonment, he sought under the Policy. However, the rejected his representation, contending he was governed by the Policy, which mandated more stringent eligibility criteria including longer periods of actual and total confinement. The appellant challenged this rejection, leading to the current appeal before the .
Arguments Presented
The appellant argued that because the Policy was framed under the exercise of Article 161—the Governor’s constitutional power of —it holds a higher position in the legal hierarchy than the Policy, which was issued under the statutory provisions of the . He further contended that the judgment in , which treated the Policy as statutory, was inconsistent with the decision of a larger Bench in .
Conversely, the maintained that the Policy explicitly superseded all previous memos and that the policies were merely guidelines under the CrPC. The State argued that the date of conviction dictates the applicable policy, and as the Policy replaced the version entirely, the appellant was ineligible for release under the earlier norms.
Legal Analysis
The Court revisited the distinction between the exercise of and . Citing , the Bench reaffirmed that the power under Article 161 is untrammeled and cannot be curtailed by subordinate rules or statutory procedures.
The Court scrutinized the previous ruling in Raj Kumar , declaring it because it treated the Policy as a purely statutory instrument, thereby ignoring the constitutional foundation established in Jagdish . The Bench emphasized that when a prior three-judge Bench ruling provides a definitive interpretation—that / policies are constitutional exercises—a later co-equal bench cannot depart from that logic.
Key Observations
Highlighting the constitutional status of the power, the Court noted:
"It need not be said that a , even if it may be so, cannot override an exercise of power under Article 161, for that power is distinct and independent, uninfluenced by any other power."
Regarding the conflict in precedents, the Bench observed:
"The Policies of and are, as already observed above, identical in terms of their source of power under Article 161, and since the former has been declared by a Bench of three judges to be an exercise under the constitutional power, the inescapable conclusion would be that the identical later policy would also be the same."
Addressing the appellant's entitlement, the Court stated:
"In case a liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of the case of a ' ' for , he should be given benefit thereof."
Court’s Decision
The allowed the appeal, ruling that the Policy remains legally effective for those eligible under its criteria. The Court directed the to reconsider the appellant’s plea for in accordance with the Policy within . To avoid administrative chaos, the Court clarified that this ruling applies prospectively and does not mandate the reopening of already settled applications. This decision enforces the principle that constitutional mandates provide a protective layer for convicts that executive policy changes cannot easily dismantle.
