Haryana 2002 Remission Policy Under Article 161 Cannot Be Superseded by 2008 CrPC Policy

Case Name: Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 667

Date of Judgment/Order: 1 July 2026

Bench: Sanjay Karol, J. and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the Haryana 2002 Remission Policy was traceable to Article 161 of the Constitution and could not be superseded or displaced by the subsequent 2008 Remission Policy framed under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC. The Court ruled that a statutory remission policy cannot override or dilute the constitutional power of remission exercised under Article 161. It further held that the earlier decision in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar, to the extent it treated the 2002 Policy as statutory in nature, was per incuriam as it was inconsistent with the larger Bench decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish.

Summary: The appellant, a life convict in a murder case, sought premature release on the basis of the Haryana 2002 Remission Policy after completing the required period of actual imprisonment. The State rejected his representation on the ground that he was governed by the 2008 Policy, which prescribed a longer requirement of twenty years’ actual sentence and twenty-five years’ total sentence. The appellant challenged the rejection, contending that the 2002 Policy was framed in exercise of Article 161 and was more beneficial. The Supreme Court compared the 1993, 2002 and 2008 policies and found that the 2002 Policy, like the 1993 Policy considered in Jagdish, required cases to be placed before the Governor for orders under Article 161, whereas the 2008 Policy required orders by the Chief Minister under Section 432 CrPC. The Court therefore held that the 2002 Policy retained its constitutional character and could not be treated as having been overridden by the later statutory policy.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the appellant was entitled to have his remission claim considered under the Haryana 2002 Remission Policy. The Court directed the State of Haryana to decide the appellant’s remission application in accordance with the judgment within four weeks and directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, within four days for appropriate action. The Court clarified that the judgment would operate prospectively and would not reopen remission applications that had already been decided. Pending applications were disposed of.