Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2026
A remission policy framed under the Governor's constitutional power in Article 161 cannot be overridden by a subsequent statutory remission policy framed under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
4 August 2026
Judges
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The appellant was convicted in 2009 for the murder of a 12-year-old child.
-
He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
-
After completing more than 14 years of actual imprisonment, he sought premature release under Haryana's 2002 remission policy.
-
The State rejected his request, applying the 2008 remission policy instead.
-
Under the 2008 policy, the appellant was required to complete a longer period of imprisonment before consideration for premature release.
-
The appellant argued that the 2002 policy was framed in exercise of the Governor's constitutional power under Article 161.
-
He contended that the later statutory policy under the CrPC could not override the earlier constitutional policy.
-
The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the State's decision.
-
The appellant therefore approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Whether the Haryana Government's 2002 remission policy framed under Article 161 can be overridden by the subsequent 2008 remission policy framed under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC?
-
Whether the appellant's remission application is required to be considered under the 2002 policy rather than the 2008 policy?
-
Whether the decision in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar was rendered per incuriam because it conflicted with the larger Bench judgment in State of Haryana v. Jagdish?
-
Whether a statutory remission policy can override a remission policy based on the Governor's independent constitutional power under Article 161?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
-
The Court held that the 2002 remission policy was constitutionally rooted in Article 161.
-
The Court found that the 2008 policy operated under the statutory framework of Sections 432 and 433 CrPC.
-
A statutory policy cannot override an exercise of the Governor's independent constitutional power under Article 161.
-
The Court relied upon the larger Bench decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010).
-
The Court held that the materially similar 1993 remission policy had already been recognised in Jagdish as an exercise of Article 161 power.
-
Therefore, the 2002 policy was also required to be treated as constitutionally based.
-
The contrary conclusion reached in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021) was held to be per incuriam.
-
The State of Haryana was directed to reconsider the appellant's remission application under the 2002 policy within four weeks.
-
The Court clarified that its ruling would operate prospectively.
-
Previously decided remission applications were not to be reopened automatically.
Held
-
A remission policy based on Article 161 cannot be overridden by a subsequent statutory remission policy under the CrPC.
-
Haryana's 2002 remission policy remains operative despite the later 2008 policy.
-
The Governor's power under Article 161 is constitutionally distinct from the statutory remission power under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC.
-
State of Haryana v. Jagdish was binding on the present Bench.
-
State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar, to the extent inconsistent with Jagdish, was declared per incuriam.
-
The appellant's case must be reconsidered under the 2002 policy.
-
The judgment operates prospectively and does not reopen remission matters already finally decided.
Analysis
-
Constitutional supremacy: The judgment emphasises the distinction between a constitutional power and a statutory power. Article 161 derives directly from the Constitution and cannot simply be displaced by a later statutory policy.
-
Importance of precedent: The Court relied heavily on State of Haryana v. Jagdish, which was decided by a larger Bench and therefore remained binding.
-
Per incuriam: The Court held that Raj Kumar failed to properly account for the binding reasoning in Jagdish. Its contrary treatment of the 2002 policy was therefore legally unsustainable.
-
Remission policy: The applicable remission policy can have a major effect on when a life convict becomes eligible for consideration for premature release.
-
No automatic release: Importantly, the judgment does not order the appellant's immediate release. It directs the State to reconsider his application under the correct policy.
-
Prospective protection: The Court avoided disturbing remission decisions that had already been concluded, thereby protecting finality and administrative certainty.
-
Two policy frameworks: The judgment effectively leaves Haryana with two remission policies operating in different legal contexts, while leaving future policy administration to the State.
-
Judicial discipline: The decision reinforces the rule that a smaller Bench cannot disregard or effectively overrule the decision of a larger Bench.