Supreme Court Upholds Article 161 Remission Policy Over CrPC

• The Supreme Court held that a remission policy framed under Article 161 cannot be superseded by a later policy issued under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC.
• The Governor's power under Article 161 is 'untrammelled' and remains unaffected by the provisions of the CrPC, according to the Supreme Court.
• Prisoners who were previously denied remission based on a later statutory policy may now be eligible for consideration under the earlier constitutional policy.

The Governor's power under Article 161 is 'untrammelled' and remains unaffected by the provisions of the CrPC, according to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling on the remission policy under Article 161 of the Constitution, holding that it cannot be overridden by a later statutory policy. In a case involving Parveen Kumar alias Parveen Chauhan, who challenged the rejection of his remission plea by the Haryana government, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The ruling has far-reaching implications for lawyers and compliance officers, as it clarifies the supremacy of constitutional powers under Article 161 over statutory provisions.

The Supreme Court's decision is based on its earlier judgment in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010), which held that the Governor's power under Article 161 is 'untrammelled' and remains unaffected by the provisions of the CrPC. The Court observed that the 2002 remission policy, issued under Article 161, was rooted in constitutional powers, whereas the 2008 policy, issued under Section 432 CrPC, derived its authority from statutory provisions. This distinction is crucial, as it establishes that a statutory policy cannot override the exercise of constitutional powers under Article 161.

The Supreme Court's ruling has significant implications for remission eligibility in similar cases. As the Court clarified, the Governor's power under Article 161 is distinct and independent from statutory provisions. This means that prisoners who were previously denied remission based on a later statutory policy may now be eligible for consideration under the earlier constitutional policy. Lawyers and compliance officers should note that this ruling potentially impacts their clients' eligibility for remission in similar cases, highlighting the importance of understanding the supremacy of constitutional powers over statutory provisions.

Lawyers and compliance officers should note that this ruling clarifies the supremacy of constitutional powers under Article 161 over statutory provisions, potentially impacting their clients' eligibility for remission in similar cases.

Source: Original reporting via The Hindu