NDPS Act Convicts and Remission: Supreme Court’s Verdict Explained
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Tara Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. is a landmark judgment that examines whether convicts sentenced under the stringent provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) are entitled to remission. The case brings forth the intricate balance between constitutional clemency powers and legislative restrictions on remission.
Introduction
The petitioners, convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, were sentenced to more than ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant remission under Chapter XIX of the Punjab Jail Manual, 1996. The case raises an important constitutional question—whether the Governor’s power under Article 161 can override Section 32A of the NDPS Act, which prohibits remission.
Understanding the Legal Framework
Section 32A of the NDPS Act
Section 32A of the NDPS Act states:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of section 33, no sentence awarded under this Act (other than section 27) shall be suspended, remitted or commuted.”
This provision explicitly denies remission benefits to those convicted under the NDPS Act. The purpose behind this prohibition is to ensure that strict punishment acts as a deterrent against drug-related crimes.
Article 161 of the Constitution
Article 161 grants the Governor the power to pardon, commute, remit, or suspend sentences:
“The Governor of a State shall have 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 key argument presented by the petitioners was that this constitutional power cannot be overridden by statutory provisions such as Section 32A of the NDPS Act.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners contended that:
- They had exhibited exemplary conduct in prison and were entitled to remission as per the Punjab Jail Manual.
- Section 32A of the NDPS Act is inconsistent with fundamental rights and should not curtail constitutional powers.
- The Governor’s power under Article 161 remains unaffected by statutory provisions.
- In Maru Ram v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that constitutional powers of remission cannot be curtailed by statutory law.
- Convicts under IPC provisions such as Section 302 (murder) are eligible for remission, so those under the NDPS Act should not be treated differently.
Respondents’ Arguments
The Union of India, appearing as the respondent, made the following counterarguments:
- Section 32A of the NDPS Act is a special law and has overriding effect over general laws like the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
- The object of the NDPS Act is deterrence against drug trafficking, and remission would dilute this objective.
- The Punjab Jail Manual is subordinate legislation and cannot override the express prohibition contained in a central statute.
- In Dadu @ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 32A, affirming that no remission can be granted.
- While constitutional powers remain intact, they must be exercised judiciously and in line with legislative intent.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court held that while the Governor’s power under Article 161 exists, statutory limitations on remission must be respected. The Court made the following crucial observations:
“Section 32A of the NDPS Act explicitly states that no remission shall be granted. The constitutional power of remission under Articles 72 and 161 remains intact, but statutory remission under Section 432 of the CrPC does not apply to NDPS convicts.”
Precedents Cited
Maru Ram v. Union of India
The Supreme Court had previously ruled that while remission powers under Articles 72 and 161 cannot be taken away, they must be exercised in accordance with statutory frameworks.
Dadu @ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra
In this case, the Court upheld the validity of Section 32A of the NDPS Act and ruled that it does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Remission under state jail manuals is subordinate to the NDPS Act.
- Section 32A of the NDPS Act prevails over CrPC provisions on remission.
- Governors retain the power to grant clemency under Article 161 but cannot do so in a manner that nullifies the legislative intent behind the NDPS Act.
- Executive remission powers must be exercised with caution, particularly in cases involving special laws.
Implications of the Judgment
The judgment has far-reaching implications for convicts serving sentences under special laws like the NDPS Act:
- Prisoners convicted under the NDPS Act cannot claim remission as a matter of right.
- Jail manuals cannot override statutory prohibitions on remission.
- Governors retain the constitutional power of clemency, but their discretion must align with legislative policy.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Tara Singh & Ors. v. Union of India underscores the strict nature of the NDPS Act. It affirms that while the Constitution grants remission powers, statutory restrictions on remission under special laws must be honored. This judgment serves as a crucial precedent for similar cases where statutory remission is barred under specific legislative frameworks.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Tara Singh & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-06-2016-1741872396347.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Money Laundering Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by Shiva Kirti Singh
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments June 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
