Tara Singh and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Background
The petitioners, convicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and serving sentences of over ten years' rigorous imprisonment, sought a Supreme Court order directing prison authorities to grant them remission under the Punjab Jail Manual's ordinary remission scheme. Successive Punjab Government circulars had expressly excluded NDPS convicts from this remission scheme, relying on Section 32-A of the NDPS Act, which bars remission of NDPS sentences.
Decision Breakdown
The petitioners argued that since the Supreme Court in Dadu v. State of Maharashtra had read down Section 32-A to preserve the executive's constitutional remission power under Articles 72/161, and since Maru Ram held that such constitutional power is distinct from ordinary statutory remission, the Court should use its own Article 32/142 powers to grant them remission. The Supreme Court held this argument was fundamentally misconceived: Article 32 can only be invoked to enforce a fundamental right, and the petitioners had shown no violation of any fundamental right, only a statutory entitlement that simply did not exist under Section 32-A. The constitutional remission power under Articles 72/161 remains with the executive alone and cannot be exercised by the Court itself via Article 32, nor can Article 142 be used to override an express statutory bar. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
A writ petition under Article 32 can only succeed where a fundamental right has actually been violated: a prisoner cannot use it to claim a remission benefit that a statute has validly withheld, even if the Constitution separately allows the government (not the courts) to grant such relief through pardon powers.