Parveen Kumar@ Parveen Chauhan Vs State of Haryana & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered whether the appellant’s application for remission was governed by Haryana’s Policy Regarding Release of Life Convicts, 2002, issued on 12 April 2002, or the subsequent Policy Regarding Premature Release of Life Convicts, 2008, issued on 13 August 2008. The appellant had sought remission under the 2002 Policy after completing 14 years of actual imprisonment. His representation was rejected on the grounds that the 2008 Policy applied and that he had not completed the minimum period of imprisonment required under that policy. The High Court upheld the rejection, leading to the present appeal.
The appellant argued that the 2002 Policy had been framed under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, whereas the 2008 Policy had been issued under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to the appellant, a constitutional remission policy could not be overridden by a subsequent statutory policy. He also relied on the decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, contending that the more beneficial remission policy should govern the case. The State argued that both policies were statutory in nature, the 2008 Policy had superseded the 2002 Policy, and since the appellant was convicted after the 2008 Policy came into force, only that policy was applicable.
