By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
A recent judgment of the Supreme Court is set to resonate through the annals of constitutional law and criminal jurisprudence by reaffirming a foundational principle: the governor’s constitutional powers under Article 161 stand above statutory remission policies framed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
In Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan vs State of Haryana, the apex court bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh ruled that the constitutional authority vested in the governor to grant pardons, reprieves and remissions cannot be diluted or overridden by executive policies issued under Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC.
The verdict restored the primacy of Haryana’s 2002 remission policy, declared the 2021 decision in State of Haryana vs Raj Kumar per incuriam for overlooking binding precedent, and reaffirmed the larger bench ruling in State of Haryana vs Jagdish (2010).
THE CONVICT’S PLEA
Parveen Kumar, convicted in 2009 for the murder of a 12-year-old child, had completed more than 14 years of actual imprisonment when he sought premature release under Haryana’s 2002 remission policy. The state rejected his application by invoking the more restrictive 2008 policy, which required a minimum of 20 years of actual imprisonment and 25 years, including remissions.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the rejection. On appeal, however, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the 2002 policy continued to govern the prisoner’s claim and could not be displaced by the later statutory framework.
CONSTITUTION VERSUS STATUTE
At the heart of the judgment lies a crucial constitutional distinction.
Article 161 empowers the governor to grant pardons, reprieves, respites and remissions in specified cases. This authority flows directly from the Constitution and occupies a higher normative plane than statutory provisions.
By contrast, Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC establish a legislative framework through which governments administer remission policies. These provisions regulate executive procedure, but cannot curtail a constitutional power.
The apex court emphasised that while governments may formulate remission policies to guide administrative decision-making, those policies cannot override or restrict the governor’s constitutional prerogative. Constitutional authority, the bench made clear, cannot be subordinated to statutory regulation.
REAFFIRMING JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
The judgment also carries an important institutional message.
Declaring State of Haryana vs Raj Kumar (2021) per incuriam, the Court held that it had failed to consider the binding larger bench decision in State of Haryana vs Jagdish (2010).
The ruling reinforces the doctrine of precedent, reminding courts that smaller benches remain bound by decisions of larger benches. Such judicial discipline ensures consistency, certainty and institutional integrity in constitutional adjudication.
PART OF A LARGER CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITION
The decision builds upon decades of constitutional jurisprudence concerning executive clemency.
In Maru Ram vs Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of remission powers while recognising that statutory provisions cannot diminish constitutional authority.
Swamy Shraddananda vs State of Karnataka (2008) introduced the concept of “special category” life sentences in particularly heinous crimes, illustrating how the Court sought to balance mercy with public safety and deterrence.
The Constitution bench in Union of India vs V Sriharan (2016) drew a clear distinction between constitutional powers under Articles 72 and 161 and statutory remission under the CrPC, reaffirming the sovereign character of executive clemency.
Most significantly, State of Haryana vs Jagdish (2010) established that prisoners are entitled to the benefit of the more liberal remission policy applicable to their cases—a principle now emphatically reaffirmed.
THE HUMAN FACE OF REMISSION
The ruling also revives an enduring constitutional philosophy: mercy is not an act of weakness, but an expression of constitutional strength.
Remission is more than an administrative exercise. It reflects society’s belief that punishment should not extinguish the possibility of reform.
The philosophy rests on three enduring principles:
First, rehabilitation must remain an objective of criminal justice. A prisoner who has demonstrated genuine reform should have the opportunity to reintegrate into society.
Second, justice must remain dynamic. As societies evolve, so too do their ideas about punishment, forgiveness and rehabilitation. Remission policies reflect that evolving moral landscape.
Third, constitutional mercy safeguards individual dignity by ensuring that rigid statutory frameworks do not convert life imprisonment into perpetual incarceration without meaningful review.
MERCY IN PRACTICE
The significance of remission becomes clearer through the lives it transforms. In Maharashtra, a convict who spent over 15 years in prison for a violent crime rebuilt his life after early release under the state’s remission policy. Today, he operates a tailoring business and provides employment to former prisoners, illustrating how rehabilitation can become a social asset.
In Uttar Pradesh, a woman convicted of killing her abusive husband was granted remission after serving 12 years. Her release enabled her to reunite with children who had spent their formative years in institutional care, demonstrating how mercy can restore fractured families.
Likewise, the release of several convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case under Article 161 highlighted the governor’s constitutional role in balancing humanitarian considerations with complex legal and political realities.
Such examples remind us that remission is not merely a legal doctrine. It represents the possibility of redemption and the belief that individuals are capable of transformation.
JUSTICE TEMPERED BY MERCY
The Supreme Court’s ruling ultimately reinforces a timeless constitutional ideal: justice without mercy risks becoming tyranny, while mercy without justice descends into arbitrariness.
By reaffirming the governor’s constitutional authority under Article 161, the Court has protected an essential constitutional safeguard against statutory encroachment. At the same time, it has restored coherence to remission jurisprudence and reinforced the discipline of judicial precedent.
The judgment is, therefore, about far more than the premature release of prisoners. It reasserts the supremacy of the Constitution, preserves the balance between justice and compassion, and reminds us that behind every conviction lies a human being capable of change.
In doing so, the Court has reaffirmed one of the Constitution’s most enduring promises—that the law must punish where necessary, but it must also preserve the possibility of mercy where justice permits.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court,
Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi
The post Mercy Above Statute: Governor’s Power appeared first on India Legal.