Remission Policy Under Article 161 Cannot Be Overridden by Statutory Policy: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a remission policy framed by a State in exercise of the Governor's constitutional powers under Article 161 of the Constitution cannot be overridden by a later policy issued under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [corresponding to Section 473 and 474 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), respectively].

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh said a statutory policy cannot override the exercise of constitutional powers under Article 161, as the Governor's power to grant remission is distinct, independent and not controlled by statutory provisions.

The ruling came while allowing an appeal filed by Parveen Kumar alias Parveen Chauhan, who had challenged the rejection of his remission plea by the Haryana government.

Why did the Court prefer the 2002 remission policy over the 2008 policy?

The dispute before the Court was whether the appellant's request for remission should be considered under Haryana's "Policy Regarding Release of Life Convicts, 2002", issued on April 12, 2002, or the later "Premature Release of Life Convicts, 2008" policy issued on August 13, 2008.

After examining all the relevant policies, including an earlier policy of 2000, Court found a crucial difference in their legal basis.

It noted that both the 2000 and 2002 policies required remission proposals to be placed before the Governor for orders under Article 161 of the Constitution. In contrast, the 2008 policy specifically provided that such proposals would be placed before the Chief Minister for orders under Section 432 CrPC.

"This clearly shows the constitutional ambit of the former and statutory ambit of the latter," the Bench observed.

Relying on its decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010), Court reiterated that the Governor's power under Article 161 is "untrammelled" and remains unaffected by the provisions of the CrPC.

Background of the case

The appellant was convicted on January 3, 2009, for the murder of a 12-year-old child and sentenced to life imprisonment.

He later sought premature release under the 2002 policy. However, the Haryana authorities rejected his representation on October 20, 2022, holding that he would be governed by the 2008 policy.

According to the State, as of September 21, 2022, he had completed 13 years, 7 months and 16 days of actual imprisonment and 16 years, 5 months and 16 days of total imprisonment, which fell short of the requirement under the 2008 policy of 20 years of actual imprisonment and 25 years of total imprisonment for consideration of remission.

His challenge to that decision was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2025, following which he approached the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court say about the earlier Raj Kumar judgment?

The State argued that the Court's decision in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021) had treated the 2002 policy as a statutory policy, making the 2008 policy applicable.

The Supreme Court rejected this contention. It held that the reasoning in Raj Kumar conflicted with the earlier decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) and was therefore per incuriam.

The Bench observed that the 2002 policy was clearly rooted in Article 161, while the 2008 policy expressly derived its authority from Section 432 CrPC. Although both policies were issued under the signature of the Financial Commissioner, Government of Haryana, Court said the observation in Raj Kumar that the 2002 policy was merely a memorandum "may be a mistaken position".

Holding that the 2002 policy was framed under the Constitution, Court said the later 2008 policy could not legally supersede it.

"Since the 2002 policy stood framed under the Constitution and such power is to be exercised by the Governor himself, the subsequent Policy of 2008 cannot deter the effect of the former and the observation that it supersedes the 2002 policy is untenable in law," the Bench held.

Court said the appellant would therefore be entitled to the benefit of the 2002 policy, making him eligible to be considered for remission on the basis of the shorter period of imprisonment prescribed under that policy.

Prospective application of the ruling

Court clarified that its ruling would operate prospectively and would not reopen remission applications that had already been decided.

It also noted that, following the judgment, Haryana would effectively have two separate remission policies operating simultaneously, leaving it to the State to decide how it wishes to proceed in future.

Finally, Court directed the Haryana government to take a fresh decision on the appellant's remission application in accordance with the judgment within four weeks.

Case Title: Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan Vs State of Haryana

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh

Date of Judgment: July 1, 2026