Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana
Background
The appellant was convicted for the murder of a 12-year-old child in 2009 and sentenced to life imprisonment. After serving over 14 years, he applied for premature release under Haryana's 2002 remission policy, but the State rejected his plea, holding that he was instead governed by the stricter 2008 policy under which he had not yet completed the required sentence. The core legal question was whether the 2002 policy (like an earlier 1993 policy) was issued under the Governor's constitutional power (Article 161) or was merely a statutory policy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, because a policy rooted in Article 161 cannot be overridden by a later statutory policy.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the 2002 policy was, in substance, identical in structure and origin to the 1993 policy, which an earlier three-judge bench (in State of Haryana v. Jagdish) had already held to be issued under Article 161 of the Constitution. Since a constitutional power cannot be displaced by a later statutory scheme, the Court found that a subsequent ruling (State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar) treating the 2002 policy as merely statutory was per incuriam, because it conflicted with the binding three-judge decision in Jagdish without being referred to a larger bench. Applying Jagdish's reasoning, the Court held the 2002 policy continued to apply to the appellant, entitling him to consideration for release on more lenient terms, while clarifying the ruling applies only prospectively and will not reopen already-settled remission cases.
Lesson Learnt
When a government policy is rooted in a constitutional power (like the Governor's clemency power under Article 161), a later ordinary statutory policy cannot override it, and courts must follow rulings from larger benches over conflicting decisions from equal or smaller benches, even years later.