Constitutional Remission Policy Under Article 161 Prevails Over Subsequent Statutory Policies Under Section 432 CrPC

The appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC on January 3, 2009, for an incident occurring in 2007

Having served over 14 years of actual imprisonment, he applied for premature release on May 26, 2022, seeking the benefit of the '2002 Policy'

The State rejected his representation on October 20, 2022, asserting that the appellant was governed by the '2008 Policy,' which required 20 years of actual sentence for his category of offense

The High Court dismissed his challenge on January 27, 2025, leading to this appeal

1. Whether the appellant’s application for remission is governed by the '2002 Policy' (traceable to Article 161) or the '2008 Policy' (statutory under CrPC)

2. Whether the judgment in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021) holds binding precedential value regarding the nature of the 2002 Policy in light of the larger Bench decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010)

The court applied Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which grants the Governor the independent power to grant pardons and remissions

It relied on the precedent State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010), which established that a policy framed under Article 161 is a constitutional mandate that cannot be overridden by subordinate statutory rules (Sections 432/433 CrPC) and that the more liberal policy prevailing on the date of consideration should apply to the convict

The court also invoked the doctrine of per incuriam, stating that a decision is not binding if it contradicts an earlier ruling by a larger Bench or fails to consider relevant constitutional provisions

The Court examined the language of both policies, noting that the 2002 Policy expressly required papers to be placed before the Governor for orders under Article 161, whereas the 2008 Policy directed matters to the Chief Minister under Section 432 CrPC

The Court found that while the two-judge Bench in Raj Kumar (2021) had characterized the 2002 Policy as merely "statutory," this finding directly contradicted the three-judge Bench decision in Jagdish (2010), which held that such identical previous policies were constitutional in nature

Consequently, the Court declared the reasoning in Raj Kumar regarding the nature of the 2002 Policy to be per incuriam

The Court reasoned that because the 2002 Policy was an exercise of constitutional power, it remained effective for consideration despite the 2008 statutory policy's attempt to supersede it, especially when the earlier policy was more beneficial to the convict

The Court clarified that the 2008 Policy cannot denude a convict of the benefits of a policy traceable to Article 161

The State was directed to reconsider the appellant’s remission application in light of the 2002 Policy within four weeks

The Court further specified that this judgment applies prospectively and does not reopen previously decided remission applications