Supreme Court examines the validity of remission policy under Article 161 of the Constitution: Pyare Lal vs. State of Haryana (2020)

Date of the Judgment: July 17, 2020
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1003 of 2017
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Vineet Saran, J.

Can a state government release prisoners based on a general policy without considering individual case details? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question regarding the exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution, specifically concerning the premature release of convicts. This case examines the extent to which a Governor can grant special remissions to prisoners based on a blanket policy, and whether such a policy adheres to constitutional principles. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Vineet Saran.

Case Background

The appellant, Pyare Lal, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. After serving 8 years of his sentence, and being over 75 years of age, he was prematurely released in 2019, based on a policy of the State Government of Haryana.

The Supreme Court, while hearing his appeal, questioned the legality of this release, specifically whether the policy allowed for premature release before completion of 14 years of actual sentence for an offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The State of Haryana responded that the release was granted as a special remission on the occasion of Independence Day, August 15, 2019, under Article 161 of the Constitution.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court, while considering the appellant’s case, took note of the fact that the appellant had been released prematurely. The Court questioned the State Government about the policy that allowed such release before completion of 14 years of actual sentence for an offense punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The State responded that the release was a special remission granted under Article 161 of the Constitution. This led the Court to examine the validity of the remission policy itself and whether it was in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in previous cases.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework in this case revolves around Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which grants the Governor of a State the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offense against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends. The judgment also discusses Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which stipulates that a person sentenced to life imprisonment must serve at least 14 years of imprisonment.

The policy decision dated 02.08.2019, issued by the Governor of Haryana, stated that convicts who have been sentenced for life and are 75 years or above (65 years for females) as on 15.08.2019, and have completed eight years of actual sentence (six years for females), and whose conduct has remained satisfactory during confinement, would be released forthwith. The policy also listed exceptions, such as those convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and those convicted for offenses under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court revolved around the interpretation and application of Article 161 of the Constitution and its interplay with Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The following arguments were made:

• Appellant’s Counsel: Argued that the policy laid down by the State Government was correct and the appellant was rightly granted remission, relying on the observations in Maru Ram vs. Union of India and others [(1981) 1 SCC 107]. The counsel contended that the policy was in line with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
• State of Haryana’s Counsel: Justified the release based on the special remission granted under Article 161 of the Constitution, asserting that the Governor has the power to grant remissions. The State also argued that the policy was framed to provide guidelines for the exercise of this power. However, the State conceded that no individual facts or material pertaining to any of the cases were placed before the Governor, and that the benefit was conferred by the Executive itself based on the policy.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether, in the exercise of power conferred under Article 161 of the Constitution, a policy can be framed, whereunder certain norms or postulates are laid down, on the satisfaction of which the benefit of remission can thereafter be granted by the Executive without placing the facts or material with respect to any of the cases before the Governor, and whether such exercise can override the requirements under Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to several key cases and legal provisions while considering the issue:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Maru Ram vs. Union of India and others [(1981) 1 SCC 107]:* The Court acknowledged the observations in this case regarding general orders but noted that the order issued on 18.07.1978 in exercise of powers conferred under Article 161 of the Constitution, which granted benefit to convicts in an omnibus way, did not meet with the approval of the Court.
• Swaran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others [(1998) 4 SCC 75]:* The Court highlighted that in this case, the order of the Governor was set aside because the Governor was not posted with material facts.
• Epuru Sudhakar vs. Govt. of A.P. [(2006) 8 SCC 161]:* The Court noted that this case emphasized that the power must be exercised depending on the facts and circumstances of the concerned case and based on facts and materials of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s primary concern was whether the executive could grant remissions based on a general policy without considering the individual facts and circumstances of each case. The Court emphasized that while the Governor has the power under Article 161 of the Constitution, this power must be exercised judiciously, taking into account the severity of the crime, its impact on society, and the specific details of each case. The Court was also concerned that the policy adopted by the State of Haryana did not ensure that the Governor had the opportunity to consider all relevant factors before granting remission. The Court also considered the interplay between the constitutional power under Article 161 and the statutory requirements under Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Logical Reasoning

The Court did not provide a definitive answer but raised concerns about the approach taken by the State of Haryana. The Court observed that the individual facts and circumstances of the case were not placed before the Governor, and the basic aspects such as the manner in which the crime was committed, the impact of the crime on society, and the seriousness of the crime were suppressed. The Court noted that the executive had conferred the benefit based on the policy without the Governor having an opportunity to consider individual cases. The Court emphasized that the power under Article 161 must be exercised judiciously, considering the facts and materials of each case. The Court also noted that the observations in Maru Ram vs. Union of India and others [(1981) 1 SCC 107] regarding general orders, did not meet with the approval of the Court in the context of the order issued on 18.07.1978. The Court referred the matter to a larger bench for a detailed consideration of the issues.

The Court quoted the following from previous judgments:

• “all public power, including constitutional power, shall never be exercisable arbitrarily or mala fide, and ordinarily guidelines for fair and equal execution are guarantors of valid play of power” (from Maru Ram vs. Union of India and others [(1981) 1 SCC 107])
• “if such power was exercised arbitrarily, mala fide or in absolute disregard of the finer canons of the constitutionalism, the by-product order cannot get the approval of law and in such cases, the judicial hand must be stretched to it” (from Swaran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others [(1998) 4 SCC 75])
• “The said power being a constitutional power conferred upon the Governor by the Constitution is amenable to judicial review on certain limited grounds… The Court, therefore, would be justified in interfering with an order passed by the Governor in exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution if the Governor is found to have exercised the power himself without being advised by the Government or if the Governor transgresses the jurisdiction in exercising the same or it is established that the Governor has passed the order without application of mind or the order in question is a mala fide one or the Governor has passed the order on some extraneous consideration.” (from Satpal vs. State of Haryana [(2000) 5 SCC 170])

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns about the practice of granting remissions based on general policies without considering individual case details.
• The Court emphasized that the Governor’s power under Article 161 of the Constitution must be exercised judiciously, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances.
• The judgment highlights the importance of judicial review in ensuring that constitutional powers are not exercised arbitrarily.
• The matter has been referred to a larger bench for a detailed consideration of the issues.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constituting a Bench of appropriate strength to consider the issues raised in the present matter.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution to grant remission cannot be done through a blanket policy without placing the facts and material of individual cases before the Governor. This case raises questions about the extent to which a policy can be framed to grant remission, and whether such a policy can override the requirements under Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This position is a departure from the previous understanding that general orders could be issued under Article 161, and emphasizes the need for individual case consideration.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pyare Lal vs. State of Haryana raises significant questions about the validity of remission policies framed under Article 161 of the Constitution. The Court has emphasized that the Governor’s power to grant remissions must be exercised judiciously, based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and not through a blanket policy. The matter has been referred to a larger bench for further consideration, indicating the complexity and importance of the issues involved.

Category

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Category: Article 161, Constitution of India

Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Child Category: Section 433-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Child Category: Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Parent Category: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Child Category: Section 32A, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Remission Policy

Child Category: Premature Release

Child Category: Life Imprisonment

Child Category: Constitutional Law

Child Category: Criminal Procedure

FAQ

Q: What is Article 161 of the Constitution of India?

A: Article 161 of the Constitution of India grants the Governor of a State the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offense against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.

Q: What is Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

A: Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stipulates that a person sentenced to life imprisonment must serve at least 14 years of imprisonment.

Q: What was the issue in Pyare Lal vs. State of Haryana?

A: The main issue was whether a State Government can release prisoners based on a general policy under Article 161 of the Constitution, without considering individual case details.

Q: What did the Supreme Court say about the remission policy in this case?

A: The Supreme Court expressed concerns about the validity of a policy that allows for remission based on general norms without considering individual case details. The Court emphasized that the Governor’s power under Article 161 must be exercised judiciously, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances.

Q: What is the practical implication of this judgment?

A: This judgment implies that State Governments cannot release prisoners based solely on a general policy. They must consider the individual facts and circumstances of each case, including the severity of the crime and its impact on society, before granting remission.

Q: What does it mean that the matter was referred to a larger bench?

A: Referring the matter to a larger bench means that the Supreme Court considers the issue to be of significant importance and complexity, requiring a more comprehensive examination by a larger group of judges.