Supreme Court on Per Incuriam and Remission: Constitutional Policy Prevails Over Statutory Policy

This write‑up distils the Supreme Court’s judgment in Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan Vs State of Haryana & Ors. (Supreme Court of India), where the Court:

• Reaffirmed the binding nature of a larger Bench decision in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010)
• Declared its later decision in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021) to be per incuriam on a crucial aspect
• Clarified the relationship between remission policies issued under Article 161 of the Constitution and those framed under Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC
• Directed reconsideration of remission under the Haryana Remission Policy, 2002

Because this is a full text judicial decision, the discussion below is a structured summary of the core issues, reasoning, and final directions, rather than a line‑by‑line rewrite.

Background and Core Issue

The central controversy before the Supreme Court was:

Whether the remission application of the appellant, convicted in Haryana, should be examined under the “Policy Regarding Release of Life Convicts 2002” dated 12 April 2002, or under the later “Premature Release of Life Convicts 2008” policy dated 13 August 2008.

Conviction and Procedural History

• The appellant was convicted for murder of a 12‑year‑old child in connection with FIR No. 670 of 2007 dated 25 September 2007, PS City, Gurgaon.
• On 3 January 2009, he was:
  • Sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC
  • Sentenced to 5 years under Section 365 IPC
  • Sentenced to 2 years under Section 201 IPC
• The High Court, by judgment dated 16 July 2013 in CRA No.198 of 2009, set aside the conviction under Section 365 IPC but maintained the life sentence.
• The appeal to the Supreme Court (SLP (Crl.) No.2128 of 2014) was dismissed on 15 September 2015 and the conviction attained finality.

Remission Application and Rejection

1. On 26 May 2022, the appellant sought remission under the 2002 Policy, asserting he had completed 14 years of actual imprisonment.
2. When no decision was forthcoming, he filed CRWP No.7465 of 2022, leading to a High Court direction to decide the representation within three months.
3. On 20 October 2022, the State rejected his request on two grounds:
   • His case, according to the State, was governed by the 2008 Policy, not the 2002 Policy.
   • Under the 2008 Policy, as on 21 September 2022, he had:
     • Completed 13 years 7 months 16 days of actual imprisonment, and
     • 16 years 5 months 16 days of total imprisonment (including remission),
       which fell short of the 20 years actual and 25 years total sentence requirement.
4. The appellant challenged this rejection in CRWP No.12409 of 2024, relying strongly on State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216.
5. The High Court dismissed his writ petition on 27 January 2025, following which the matter reached the Supreme Court in appeal.

Rival Contentions

Appellant’s Stand

The appellant advanced three key propositions:

1. Nature of the 2002 Policy

   • The 2002 Policy was framed in exercise of the Governor’s powers under Article 161 of the Constitution.
   • A subsequent policy framed purely under Section 432 and Section 433 of the CrPC (the 2008 Policy) could not “supersede” or dilute a constitutional remission policy.

2. Beneficial Policy Principle

   • On the date of consideration of remission, the more liberal or beneficial policy must be applied, as recognised in State of Haryana v. Jagdish.
   • Thus, if the 2002 Policy was more favourable, that should govern his case.

3. Precedential Value of Raj Kumar

   • State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2021) 9 SCC 292, which treated the 2002 Policy as statutory, could not prevail over the three‑Judge Bench decision in Jagdish, which had already declared the comparable 1993 Policy to be traceable to Article 161.
   • Therefore, to the extent Raj Kumar conflicted with Jagdish, it lacked binding precedential force.

State’s Position

The State’s submissions, in essence, were:

1. Supremacy of Constitutional Policy

   • In principle, a policy under Article 161 overrides a policy framed under the CrPC.

2. Effect of Raj Kumar on Policy Characterisation

   • However, following Raj Kumar, both the 2002 and 2008 policies had to be regarded as statutory in character, rooted in Section 432 and Section 433 of the CrPC.
   • Since the 2008 Policy expressly superseded the 2002 Policy, and was the policy in force on the date of conviction, the 2002 Policy was no longer applicable to the appellant.

Survey of Haryana Remission Policies