Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Primacy in Remission Policy Dispute, 2002 Remission Policy Under Article 161 Prevails Over 2008 Statutory Policy, Orders Reconsideration of Convict's Case
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the constitutional authority of remission policies framed under Article 161 of the Constitution, emphasizing that such policies cannot be overridden by statutory policies enacted under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The case, titled Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana, highlights the supremacy of constitutional powers exercised by the Governor over statutory provisions.
The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, was tasked with determining the applicability of two conflicting remission policies in Haryana: the 2002 policy framed under Article 161 and the subsequent 2008 policy enacted under Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC. The appellant, Parveen Kumar, sought remission based on the 2002 policy after serving 14 years of imprisonment, which the state rejected, applying the 2008 policy.
In its judgment, the court held that the 2002 policy, as a constitutional exercise of the Governor's powers, retains precedence over the 2008 statutory policy. The court's decision aligns with the precedent set in Jagdish v. State of Haryana, wherein it was determined that a more liberal policy in effect at the time of remission consideration should apply.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court declared the 2021 decision in Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana, which treated both the 2002 and 2008 policies as statutory, to be per incuriam, meaning it was rendered in ignorance of binding precedent and thus not valid as a precedent.
The judgment mandates the Haryana government to reconsider Parveen Kumar's application for remission under the 2002 policy and make a decision within four weeks, emphasizing that the findings apply prospectively without reopening previously decided cases.
This ruling underscores the distinct and independent nature of constitutional powers under Article 161, reiterating that statutory policies cannot supersede them.
Bottom Line:
Remission policies - Applicability of the 2002 Policy framed under Article 161 of the Constitution of India vis-a-vis the 2008 Policy enacted under Section 432 and 433 of the CrPC - Held, policies framed under Article 161 of the Constitution cannot be overridden by policies enacted under statutory provisions.
Statutory provision(s): Article 161 of the Constitution of India, Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Parveen Kumar@ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2932979
