2010 (3) TMI 1210 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inconsistency in judicial views regarding the applicable remission policy.
2. Determination of the relevant date for the remission policy: date of conviction or date of consideration.
3. The scope and application of the clemency power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inconsistency in Judicial Views:
The Supreme Court identified an inconsistency in its previous judgments regarding the remission policy applicable to life convicts. The conflict arose between the judgment in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Balwan (AIR 1999 SC 3333) and the judgments in State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh & Ors. (2007) 13 SCC 606 and State of Haryana v. Bhup Singh (AIR 2009 SC 1252). The former suggested considering the remission policy on the date the convict's case is put before the Governor under Article 161, while the latter two judgments emphasized the policy prevailing at the time of conviction.

2. Relevant Date for Remission Policy:
The core issue was whether the remission policy applicable should be the one existing on the date of the convict's conviction or the one prevailing at the time of consideration for pre-mature release. The respondent was convicted on 20.05.1999, and the policy in existence at that time was dated 04.02.1993. The High Court ruled that the respondent's case should be considered based on the policy existing at the time of his conviction, not the subsequent policy introduced on 13.08.2008.

3. Scope and Application of Clemency Power:
The Supreme Court examined the clemency powers under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, which allow the President and Governors to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment. The Court emphasized that these powers are absolute and cannot be restricted by statutory provisions like Sections 432, 433, and 433-A of the Cr.P.C. The Court noted that the clemency power should be exercised cautiously and in appropriate cases, balancing public welfare and the rehabilitation of the convict.

Judgment Summary:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision that the respondent's case for pre-mature release should be considered based on the remission policy prevailing at the time of his conviction (04.02.1993). The Court highlighted that the clemency power under Articles 72 and 161 remains unfettered and can be exercised even if the convict does not meet the criteria of the current remission policy. The Court directed the State Government to calculate the respondent's sentence for remission purposes as per the policy dated 04.02.1993, considering the respondent had already served more than 14 years of actual imprisonment by 12.02.2009.