The Supreme Court has held that Haryana’s 2002 remission policy, framed under Article 161 of the Constitution, cannot be overridden by the State’s subsequent 2008 statutory remission policy issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure. A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal filed by a life convict, holding that his application for premature release must be considered under the 2002 policy and directing the State to decide his remission plea within four weeks.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Parveen Kumar alias Parveen Chauhan, was convicted on January 3, 2009, for the murder of a 12-year-old child in connection with FIR No. 670 of 2007 registered at Police Station City, Gurgaon. He was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, along with separate sentences under Sections 365 and 201 IPC. The Punjab and Haryana High Court later set aside his conviction under Section 365 IPC, while the remaining conviction attained finality after the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal in 2015.
In May 2022, after completing 14 years of actual imprisonment, the appellant sought premature release under Haryana’s 2002 remission policy. His representation was eventually rejected by the State on the ground that the 2008 policy applied to his case and that he had not completed the minimum period of imprisonment required under that policy. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his challenge, leading to the present appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant argued that the 2002 policy was framed under Article 161 of the Constitution and therefore could not be displaced by the 2008 policy, which was issued under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also contended that the decision in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar could not prevail over the larger Bench judgment in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, which recognised the constitutional character of similar remission policies.
The State contended that the 2008 policy had superseded the earlier policy and that, since it was in force when the appellant was convicted, it alone governed his claim for remission. It relied on Raj Kumar to argue that both the 2002 and 2008 policies were statutory in nature.
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined Haryana’s remission policies issued over several decades and compared the text of the 2002 and 2008 policies. It found that the 2002 policy required cases to be placed before the Governor for orders under Article 161 of the Constitution, whereas the 2008 policy specifically vested decision-making under Section 432 CrPC before the Chief Minister.
The Bench observed that the distinction between the two policies was constitutionally significant and held:
“It need not be said that a statutory policy, even if it may be so, cannot override a exercise of power under Article 161, for that power is distinct and independent, uninfluenced by any other power, more so statutory in nature.”
The Court relied extensively on the three-Judge Bench decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, which had held that the 1993 remission policy was issued under Article 161 and that a later statutory policy could not override it. It noted that the 2002 policy was materially identical to the 1993 policy in requiring the Governor to exercise powers under Article 161.
Raj Kumar Held Per Incuriam
Addressing the appellant’s submission regarding State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar, the Court examined the principles governing the doctrine of per incuriam. It held that Raj Kumar incorrectly treated the 2002 policy as statutory despite the binding larger Bench decision in Jagdish. Consequently, the Court concluded that Raj Kumar was rendered per incuriam to that extent.
The Bench observed:
“The Policies of 1993 and 2002 are… identical in terms of their source of power under Article 161… the inescapable conclusion would be that the identical later policy would also be the same… the judgment in Rajkumar supra held the 2002 Policy to be of statutory origin. This would fall foul of the reasoning in Jagdish supra and hence be rendered per incuriam.”
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the appellant’s remission application must be considered under the 2002 policy. It ruled that the 2008 policy could not legally supersede the constitutional remission policy framed under Article 161.
The Court further clarified that its ruling would apply prospectively and would not reopen remission applications that had already been decided.
It directed the State of Haryana to decide the appellant’s remission application in accordance with the judgment within four weeks and ordered that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of Haryana for necessary action.
Case Title: Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9920 of 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date: July 1, 2026
