Supreme Court Reviews Remission Policy in Life Imprisonment Case

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Pyare Lal vs. State of Haryana, examined the legality of a remission policy that led to the premature release of a life convict. The judgment focused on whether the Governor’s power under Article 161 of the Constitution can be exercised through a policy that grants automatic remission without individual case review.

Pyare Lal, the appellant, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. After serving eight years, he was released in 2019 under the Haryana Government’s special remission policy, which allowed the release of convicts above 75 years of age who had completed eight years of actual sentence. The Supreme Court examined whether this policy-based remission, without placing individual case facts before the Governor, was constitutionally valid.

Background of the Case

Pyare Lal was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. While serving his sentence, the Haryana Government issued a remission policy on August 2, 2019, granting special remission to elderly convicts. As per the policy:

• Male convicts above 75 years and female convicts above 65 years who had served at least eight and six years of actual sentence respectively were eligible for release.
• The remission would not apply to convicts sentenced to death, those guilty of heinous crimes, or those convicted under certain special laws.

Under this policy, Pyare Lal was released prematurely. The Supreme Court examined whether such policy-driven remission was valid without placing individual case records before the Governor.

Arguments of the Petitioner

Pyare Lal, through legal counsel, argued:

• The remission was granted as per a valid government policy.
• The Governor’s power under Article 161 can be exercised collectively through a policy rather than requiring individual case review.
• The policy ensured uniformity and fairness in granting remission to elderly convicts.

Arguments of the Respondent

The State of Haryana contended:

• The remission policy was valid and was applied uniformly to all eligible convicts.
• There was no requirement for placing individual case facts before the Governor.
• The remission order was passed in accordance with the guidelines set by the state government.

Supreme Court’s Key Findings

1. Requirement of Individual Case Review

The Court emphasized that remission under Article 161 requires the Governor to consider individual case facts. It ruled:

“The Governor must have access to individual case details, including the nature of the crime and the convict’s conduct, before granting remission.”

2. Limitations of Policy-Based Remission

The Court questioned whether a blanket remission policy could override Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates that life convicts serve a minimum of 14 years before remission. It observed:

“While the Governor’s power under Article 161 is sovereign, it cannot be exercised in a manner that completely bypasses statutory provisions requiring a minimum term of imprisonment.”

3. Precedents on Remission Powers

The judgment referred to Maru Ram vs. Union of India, where the Court held that individual case scrutiny is necessary for granting remission. It stated:

“Remission cannot be granted mechanically based on a policy without considering the circumstances of each case.”

4. Future Considerations for Remission

The Court indicated that the case should be referred to a larger bench to determine the constitutional validity of such policies. It framed the key question:

“Can a policy under Article 161 lay down automatic remission criteria without individual case assessment by the Governor?”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court:

• Referred the matter to a larger bench for review.
• Directed the Haryana Government to clarify whether similar remission cases involved individual scrutiny.
• Held that remission policies must comply with constitutional principles and statutory requirements.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Remission under Article 161 requires individual case review by the Governor.
• Policy-based remission must align with statutory mandates like Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
• Judicial scrutiny is necessary to ensure remission policies do not lead to arbitrary releases.
• The case sets a precedent for future remission policies across Indian states.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Pyare Lal vs. State of Haryana highlights the need for a balance between executive discretion in granting remission and adherence to constitutional and statutory safeguards. The referral to a larger bench ensures that the issue will be examined in greater detail, shaping future policies on remission and early release of life convicts.

Petitioner Name: Pyare Lal.
Respondent Name: State of Haryana.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Vineet Saran.
Place Of Incident: Haryana.
Judgment Date: 17-07-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Pyare Lal vs State of Haryana Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 17-07-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by Vineet Saran
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2020
See all petitions in 2020 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