In a landmark judgment that could have far-reaching implications for prisoners seeking premature release, the Supreme Court has ruled that Haryana’s 2002 Remission Policy, framed under the Governor’s constitutional powers, continues to remain effective despite the introduction of the 2008 Remission Policy. The Court held that a statutory policy issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot override powers exercised under Article 161 of the Constitution.
The judgment was delivered on 1 July 2026 by a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh in Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Others.
Table of Content
Table of Contents
Background of the Case
Parveen Kumar, who was convicted in 2009 for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought premature release after serving more than fourteen years in prison. He requested that his case be considered under Haryana’s 2002 Remission Policy, which prescribed a shorter period of imprisonment before a life convict could be considered for release.
However, the Haryana Government rejected his request, stating that he was governed by the 2008 Remission Policy, under which he had not yet completed the required period of imprisonment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld that decision, leading the matter to the Supreme Court.
What Was the Main Legal Question?
The central issue before the Supreme Court was straightforward but legally significant:
Should the appellant’s remission application be considered under the 2002 policy framed under Article 161 of the Constitution, or under the 2008 policy issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
The answer depended on whether the 2002 policy derived its authority from the Constitution or merely from statutory provisions.
Arguments Before the Court
Appellant’s Stand
The appellant argued that the 2002 Remission Policy was issued under Article 161 of the Constitution, which gives the Governor the constitutional authority to grant pardons, remissions, reprieves and commutations.
Since constitutional powers are superior to statutory powers, he contended that the later 2008 policy, framed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, could not take away the benefit available under the earlier constitutional policy.
He also relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, where a larger Bench had recognised the constitutional nature of similar remission policies.
Haryana Government’s Stand
The State argued that the 2008 policy had replaced all previous remission policies. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021), which had treated both the 2002 and 2008 policies as statutory in nature.
According to the State, since the appellant was convicted after the 2008 policy came into force, only that policy could apply to his case.
Supreme Court’s Findings
1. The 2002 Policy Is Based on Constitutional Power
After examining the remission policies issued over the years, the Supreme Court found an important distinction.
The 2002 policy required every remission case to be placed before the Governor for orders under Article 161 of the Constitution.
By contrast, the 2008 policy specifically stated that remission would be granted under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with decisions ultimately taken by the State Government.
The Court observed that this clearly showed the difference between a constitutional power and a statutory power.
What Does Article 161 Say?
Article 161 empowers the Governor of a State to:
- grant pardons,
- suspend or remit sentences,
- commute punishments,
for offences falling within the executive power of the State.
The Court emphasised that this constitutional power exists independently of the Code of Criminal Procedure and cannot be limited by an executive policy framed under a statute.
2. Why the 2008 Policy Could Not Override the 2002 Policy
The Supreme Court explained that the 2008 policy was issued under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empower State Governments to suspend, remit or commute sentences.
While these are important statutory powers, they do not override the Governor’s constitutional authority under Article 161.
In simple terms, the Court held that a law made under the CrPC cannot take away powers granted directly by the Constitution.
As a result, the Court concluded that the 2002 policy continues to operate independently and remains available to eligible prisoners.
3. Supreme Court Finds Earlier 2021 Decision Was Per Incuriam
An important part of the judgment concerns the Court’s discussion of its own earlier decision in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021).
That judgment had treated the 2002 policy as a statutory policy.
The present Bench disagreed.
It held that the earlier ruling overlooked the binding decision of a three-judge Bench in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, which had already recognised that similar remission policies flowed from the Governor’s constitutional powers.
What Does Per Incuriam Mean?
The expression per incuriam literally means “through lack of care.”
In law, it refers to a judgment delivered without considering an earlier binding precedent or an important legal provision.
Since Raj Kumar conflicted with the larger Bench decision in Jagdish, the Court held that its reasoning on this point could not be treated as binding.
Final Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed that:
- Parveen Kumar’s remission application must be considered under the 2002 Haryana Remission Policy.
- The Haryana Government must decide his application within four weeks.
- The appellant is entitled to have his eligibility assessed under the more beneficial constitutional policy.
At the same time, the Court clarified that this ruling will operate prospectively. It will not reopen remission applications that have already been decided, ensuring certainty in cases that have already attained finality.
Also read: Supreme Court on AI & Privacy – Explained Simply
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is one of the most significant Supreme Court rulings on remission in recent years.
It clearly draws a distinction between constitutional powers under Article 161 and statutory powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, reaffirming that executive policies framed under a statute cannot override powers granted directly by the Constitution.
The decision also reinforces the principle that larger Bench judgments are binding on smaller Benches, promoting consistency in judicial decisions.
For life convicts in Haryana, the ruling could have a meaningful impact by allowing eligible prisoners to seek consideration under the more favourable 2002 policy. More broadly, the judgment provides valuable guidance for future remission cases across India, particularly where constitutional clemency powers and statutory remission policies intersect.
- Supreme Court Holds Haryana’s 2002 Remission Policy Continues to Benefit Eligible Life Convicts - July 1, 2026
- What We Rarely Talk About on Republic Day - January 26, 2026
- Fix Aadhaar Name Spelling Mistakes in Just 5 Minutes — Online, from Home! - September 3, 2025
Discover more from EcoLaw
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.