In a significant ruling on remission policies, the Supreme Court has held that the appellant, convicted for murder, is entitled to consideration under the more beneficial 2002 Haryana Remission Policy (framed under Article 161 of the Constitution) rather than the 2008 Policy.
Background
The appellant was convicted in 2009 for the murder of a 12-year-old child and sentenced to life imprisonment. He sought premature release under the 2002 Policy after completing the requisite period. His representations and writ petitions were rejected on the ground that the 2008 Policy applied. The High Court upheld the rejection, leading to this appeal.
Key Issue
Whether the appellant’s remission application is governed by the 2002 Policy (under Article 161) or the 2008 Policy (under Sections 432/433 CrPC).
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment on 01 July 2026:
- The 2002 Policy was framed under the constitutional power of the Governor (Article 161), similar to the 1993 Policy upheld in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010).
- The 2008 Policy, though superseding the earlier one in language, is a statutory policy under CrPC provisions.
- A constitutional power (Art. 161) cannot be overridden by a subsequent statutory policy.
- State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021) was held per incuriam to the extent it treated the 2002 Policy as purely statutory, as it conflicted with the larger Bench decision in Jagdish.
Directions:
- State to consider the appellant’s remission application under the 2002 Policy within four weeks.
- Findings apply prospectively; will not reopen already decided cases.
- State may maintain two distinct policies.
Key Takeaways
- Constitutional vs Statutory Policies: Remission under Article 161 stands on a higher pedestal and is not displaced by later CrPC-based policies.
- Beneficial Policy Applies: Prisoners entitled to the more liberal policy in force for their benefit.
- Precedent & Per Incuriam: Co-ordinate Benches must follow larger Bench decisions; conflicting views require reference to larger Bench.
- Judicial Discipline: Clear distinction maintained between Governor’s constitutional powers and executive/statutory powers.
Case Details
Case Name: Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Citation: Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9920 of 2026 (2026 INSC 667)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: 01 July 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 