Author: Swastika Dauthal, a student at ILS Law College, Pune
To the Point
In the case of “State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Raj Kumar @ Bittu” AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 3813 addresses the legal framework surrounding the premature release of prisoners in India. It focuses on the interplay between the powers of State Governments and the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution regarding remission and commutation of sentences. The case examines the policies applicable at the time of a prisoner’s conviction, the minimum period of imprisonment required for eligibility for premature release, and the procedural requirements for such decisions. The Supreme Court’s ruling provides clarity on these issues, reinforcing the importance of following statutory guidelines while balancing the rights of prisoners with public safety and justice.
Abstract
Article 161 of the Indian Constitution grants the Governor of a state the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit or commute sentences for any offence against a law relating to a matter within state’s executive power. This means the Governor cannot pardon offenses against central laws or offenses tried by military courts.
Generally, the Governor has to exercise this power on the advice of the state’s Council of Ministers. But in certain circumstances the Governor may apply his discretion. Article 161 grants the governor a significant power to exercise mercy, but this power is not unrestricted and is subject to certain limitations and judicial oversight.
This case sought to clarify the legal standards and procedures for the premature release of prisoners, particularly in light of the policies in effect at the time of conviction and the powers of the State Government and the Governor.
Use of Legal Jargon
Pardon: Completely absolves the person of the offence and its consequences.
Reprieve: Delays the execution of a sentence, allowing more time to the convicted person to appeal or seek other legal remedies.
Respite: Awarding a lesser instead of original sentence, usually due to special circumstances such as pregnancy and illness.
Remission: Lessening the amount of sentence without changing its characteristics.
Commutation: Changing nature of the sentence like changing a death sentence to life imprisonment.
Facts
Background: The case involves a prisoner, Raj Kumar @ Bittu, who was convicted on March 25, 2010. He had completed 12 years and 25 days of imprisonment as of July 6, 2021, according to the custody certificate provided by the State.
High Court Order: The State of Haryana and the writ petitioner were aggrieved by an order from the Single Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, dated May 12, 2020. The High Court guided the State to draft a fresh policy for allowing remission to prisoners. The Court also suggested that the State may consider a policy with retrospective operation, provided it does not lead to discrimination among similarly situated prisoners.
Policies in Question: The case primarily concerns the applicability of two policies regarding premature release: one dated April 12, 2002, and another dated August 13, 2008. The policies outline the conditions under which prisoners may be considered for premature release, including the requirement of serving a minimum period of imprisonment.
Eligibility for Premature Release: The policy applicable at the time of Raj Kumar’s conviction (August 13, 2008) stipulated that prisoners must complete 14 years of actual imprisonment to be eligible for consideration for premature release. However, the State Government could consider prisoners who had not completed 14 years for release under Article 161 of the Constitution.
Legal Proceedings: The appeals were filed by the State of Haryana against the High Court’s order, questioning the directions regarding the applicability of the policies and the process for considering premature release.
The case ultimately sought to clarify the legal standards and procedures for the premature release of prisoners, particularly in light of the policies in effect at the time of conviction and the powers of the State Government and the Governor.
Arguments from both sides
Appellant made the following key arguments:
Challenge to High Court’s Order: The State contended that the High Court improperly directed the drafting of a new policy under Article 161, asserting that existing policies were adequate.
Consistency of Existing Policies: They argued that the policies, particularly the one from August 13, 2008, clearly required prisoners to complete 14 years of actual imprisonment for premature release, and retrospective application could lead to inconsistencies.
Governor’s Discretion: The appellants emphasized that the Governor’s powers under Article 161 are exercised on the advice of the State Government, and the existing framework allows for proper consideration of remission cases.
Legal Framework: They maintained that the policies align with the statutory provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Prisons Act, negating the need for new policies.
Public Safety: The State argued that the policies balance prisoner rights with public safety and justice, cautioning against changes that could undermine these interests.
Overall, the appellants sought to uphold the existing legal framework for premature release without the need for new directives from the High Court.
Respondent made the following key arguments:
Right to Remission Consideration: The respondent asserted his legal right to be considered for premature release under the applicable policies at the time of his conviction, arguing against restrictions based solely on imprisonment duration.
High Court’s Jurisdiction: He contended that the High Court acted within its authority by directing the State to draft a new policy to ensure fairness and prevent discrimination among prisoners.
Justification for Retrospective Policies: The respondent argued that retrospective application of policies is necessary to address inequities faced by prisoners convicted under different rules.
Flexible Governor’s Role: He emphasized that the Governor’s powers under Article 161 should adapt to changing societal norms and justice considerations.
Emphasis on Rehabilitation: The respondent highlighted the importance of rehabilitation, advocating for policies that support the premature release of well-behaved prisoners.
Overall, the respondent sought a more equitable and rehabilitative approach to premature release, challenging the rigidity of existing policies.
Ratio
State Governments’ Authority: The Supreme Court ruled that the power under Article 161 is exercised by State Governments, with the Governor acting on their advice.
Policy Applicability: The Court emphasized that the policies in effect at the time of conviction must guide decisions on premature release, ensuring fairness.
Minimum Imprisonment Requirement: A minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment without remission is required for eligibility for premature release under relevant policies.
Governor’s Discretion: The Governor’s power to grant pardons is subject to the advice of the State Government, maintaining established processes for release.
Statutory Nature of Policies: The policies regarding premature release are statutory and must be followed unless new policies are properly enacted.
Overall, the judgment underscores the need for adherence to legal frameworks while balancing prisoner rights with public safety.
Case Laws
K.M. Nanavati vs State of Bombay (1960)
This ruling established that the Governor’s pardoning power under Article 161 is limited and is subject to judicial review. In this case Nanavati was pursuing both pardon and a special leave petition concurrently, the Supreme Court clarified that pursuing a Special Leave Petition would invalidate any pardon granted by the Governor. If a case is pending before the Supreme Court, the Governor cannot exercise the power to suspend the sentence.
Swaran Singh vs State of U.P. (1998)
The Supreme Court held that the Governor’s decision under Article 161 is not subject to judicial review, except on limited grounds.
S. Nalini vs State of Tamil Nadu (2018)
The case involved the release of convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, where the Supreme Court examined the extent of Governor’s power under Article 161 to grant remission of sentences, particularly for offences related to Central Law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the judgment in the State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Raj Kumar @ Bittu serves as a pivotal moment in the discourse surrounding the premature release of prisoners in India. By clarifying the roles of State Governments and the Governor under Article 161, the ruling reinforces the principles of accountability and fairness in the criminal justice system. It emphasizes the importance of applying existing policies consistently, ensuring that prisoners are treated equitably based on the legal framework at the time of their conviction.
The judgment also highlights the necessity of balancing the rights of prisoners with public safety, advocating for a rehabilitative approach that recognizes good behavior and the potential for reintegration into society. As a legal precedent, it encourages ongoing discussions and reforms in remission policies, fostering a more humane and just system.
Ultimately, this ruling not only impacts the lives of individual prisoners but also reflects broader societal values regarding justice, rehabilitation, and the treatment of those within the penal system. It paves the way for a more equitable approach to criminal justice, promoting a system that prioritizes both accountability and compassion.
FAQs
Can the Governor exercise the power given under Article 161 on his own?
Power under Article 161 of Constitution can be exercised by State Governments, not by Governor on his own. Advice of appropriate Government binds the Head of State.
Influence of prevalent policy at the time of conviction?
Policy prevalent at the time of conviction shall be taken into consideration for considering premature release of a prisoner.
Is it improper to seek the Governor’s approval in every premature release case?
There is nothing illegal or improper to seek approval of Governor in all cases but in cases where prisoner has not undergone 14 years of actual imprisonment falling within scope of Section 433-A of Code, it is for Governor to exercise power conferred under Article 161 of Constitution, though on aid and advice of State Government.
