Introduction

In the landmark case of State Of Haryana And Others (S) v. Raj Kumar Alias Bittu (S). (2021 INSC 377), the Supreme Court of India delved into the intricate interplay between constitutional clemency powers and statutory remission provisions governing the premature release of prisoners. Hemant Gupta, J., presided over the case, which brought forth critical questions concerning the applicability of state government policies on prisoner remission, especially in the context of imprisonment for life sentences under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The petitioner, Raj Kumar, sought premature release based on policies established by the State Government of Haryana. The High Court had previously directed the State to reconsider its remission policies, prompting appeals that questioned whether these policies operated under constitutional provisions (Articles 72 and 161) or statutory provisions (Sections 432, 433, and 433-A of the CrPC).

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in its decision delivered on August 3, 2021, meticulously analyzed the scope and applicability of various remission policies in light of constitutional and statutory provisions. The Court held that:

• Policies formulated under Section 433-A of the CrPC, which imposes a mandatory 14-year imprisonment before a prisoner can be considered for premature release, are statutory in nature and subordinate to constitutional powers.
• The constitutional powers vested under Articles 72 and 161, pertaining to pardon, reprieve, respites, and remissions, are independent and cannot be overridden by statutory provisions like Section 433-A.
• The State Government retains the authority to frame remission policies either under the constitutional mandate of Article 161 or under statutory provisions of the CrPC. However, remission under Article 161 is not bound by the 14-year restriction imposed by Section 433-A.
• The Governor acts on the advice of the State Government and is not individually bound by statutory restrictions unless acting under the constitutional provisions.
• The existing policies were declared sustainable, provided they distinguished between remissions governed by constitutional powers and those under statutory powers.

Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's directions, maintaining the validity of the State's remission policies while upholding the supremacy of constitutional clemency powers.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several landmark cases that shaped the Court's understanding of remission and clemency powers:

• Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107: This case underscored that constitutional powers of remission under Articles 72 and 161 are paramount and cannot be curtailed by statutory provisions.
• State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh (2007) 13 SCC 606: Here, the Court clarified that remission policies are statutory unless explicitly framed under constitutional mandates.
• Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216: This decision highlighted that remission policies applicable at the time of a prisoner's conviction govern their premature release, emphasizing the prospective application of Section 433-A.
• Godse case AIR 1961 SC 200: Established that imprisonment for life continues until the prisoner's death unless commuted by the government.
• Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1: Examined the relationship between Articles 161 and 162, reinforcing that executive powers must align with procedural safeguards.

These precedents were instrumental in delineating the boundaries between constitutional and statutory powers, ensuring that constitutional clemency remains a safeguard against rigid statutory frameworks.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning focused on differentiating between powers exercised under the Constitution and those under statutory provisions:

• Constitutional Clemency Powers: Articles 72 and 161 confer broad, discretionary powers to the President and Governors, respectively, to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment. These powers are not restricted by statutory conditions such as the 14-year minimum imprisonment period under Section 433-A of the CrPC.
• Statutory Remission Powers: Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC empower the State Government to suspend or remit sentences based on specific guidelines, including the mandatory 14-year imprisonment period for certain serious offenses.
• The Court emphasized that while statutory provisions provide structured frameworks for remission, constitutional powers offer a more flexible, discretionary approach that can override statutory limitations.
• Policies framed under constitutional provisions are not bound by statutory clauses unless explicitly stated, allowing for a more humane and individualized consideration of premature release.

This nuanced approach ensures that while the legislature can impose structured conditions on remission, the executive retains the ultimate authority to exercise mercy in exceptional cases, maintaining a balance between rule of law and judicial compassion.

Impact

The judgment has far-reaching implications for both the administrative machinery and the judiciary:

• Policy Formulation: State Governments are now empowered to craft remission policies that operate either under constitutional mandates or statutory frameworks, with the flexibility to prioritize constitutional provisions where necessary.
• Judicial Scrutiny: Courts will continue to uphold the primacy of constitutional clemency powers, ensuring that statutory limitations do not impede the exercise of mercy in deserving cases.
• Future Cases: The delineation between constitutional and statutory remission powers will guide future litigations concerning premature release, ensuring clarity in the application of remission criteria.
• Human Rights: Strengthening constitutional clemency powers aligns with human rights objectives, providing a mechanism to address potential injustices arising from rigid statutory provisions.

Overall, the judgment reinforces the supremacy of constitutional provisions in the realm of criminal justice, ensuring that legal frameworks remain compassionate and adaptable to individual circumstances.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in State Of Haryana And Others (S) v. Raj Kumar Alias Bittu (S). (2021 INSC 377) serves as a pivotal clarification in Indian criminal jurisprudence. By distinguishing between statutory remission powers and constitutional clemency authorities, the Court has ensured that the executive maintains a balance between structured legal frameworks and the compassionate exercise of mercy.

This judgment not only reinforces the independence and supremacy of constitutional provisions but also empowers State Governments to formulate flexible remission policies that can adapt to evolving societal norms and penological insights. Moreover, by upholding the validity of both statutory and constitutional remission mechanisms, the Court has provided a robust framework that safeguards the rights of prisoners while maintaining the integrity of the state's penal system.

Ultimately, this decision underscores the judiciary's role in interpreting the delicate balance between law and mercy, ensuring that justice remains both fair and humane.