Can Governor grant remission of sentence to convicts without delving into individual facts? Supreme Court refers question to larger bench

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question whether a Governor exercising his constitutional power under Article 161 to grant remission of sentence to a convict can do so without perusing the facts or merits of the case (Pyare Lal Vs State of Haryana)..The Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Mohan M Shantanagoudar, and Vineet Saran made the reference while perusing a bail application of a murder convict. During the hearings, the Court was informed that the convict was released prematurely on remission after the State of Haryana, through an Executive decision on August 15, 2019, decided to release a certain set of convicts if they fulfilled the laid down criteria..The state government's policy had allowed remission of sentence for the following classes of convicts:(i) if the age of the convict was above 75 years in case of a male and above 65 years in case of a female, (ii) and, if the convict had completed 8 years or 6 years of actual sentence respectively, (iii) and, if the conduct of the convict in jail was satisfactory, in that the convict had not committed any major jail offence in the last two years, (iv) and the convict did not come within any of the exceptions laid down in para (2) of the Policy;.Before the policy came into being, the appellant Pyare Lal had filed a bail plea before the Supreme Court, which was rejected in July 2017. He subsequently filed another bail application after the policy was introduced. In the second bail plea, he claimed that he was liable to be released in accordance with the policy, as he had completed 8 years of his prison sentence and was above 75 years of age..Following the introduction of this policy, the Governor of Haryana, exercising his power under Article 161, had granted remission to the appellant. While hearing the bail plea after the introduction of the policy, the Supreme Court called upon the state to explain how was this decision taken..The Court was apprised that no individual facts or material pertaining to any of the cases were placed before the Governor, and that the benefit in each of the cases was conferred by the Executive itself in terms of the policy..On this submission, the Bench noted,."The Governor, thus, did not have the occasion to look into the issues such as the severity of the crime or the manner in which the crime was committed or the impact of the crime on the Society or how the matter was seen and considered by the concerned courts while holding or upholding that the concerned convicts were found guilty of the offences in question."Supreme Court.One of the legal provisions proving to be a hurdle for the decision taken by the state government was Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which reads:."Restriction on powers of remission or Commutation in certain cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.".While analysing this provision, the Supreme Court considered its 1998 judgment in Maru Ram v. Union of India, where a Constitution Bench considered the validity of Section 433-A of the Code. It was held in that case that the Section does not contravene Article 20(1) of the Constitution..After going through other precedents, the Court came to the conclusion that,."The consistent line of cases decided by this Court has laid down that the principles of Section 433-A of the Code do not and cannot apply to the exercise of constitutional power either under Article 72 or under Article 161 of the Constitution."Supreme Court.The Court further noted that in Maru Ram, it was held that "no separate order for each individual case would be necessary but a general order must be clear enough to identify the group of cases and indicate the application of mind to the whole group"..However, it was also highlighted that the Apex Court has held time and again that relevant material must be placed before the Governor in order to enable him to exercise the power under Article 161. Failure to do so could result in quashing of the remission orders issued by the Governor, the Bench reiterated..Thus, the question framed for reference to a larger bench is:.“Whether in exercise of power conferred under Article 161 of the Constitution a policy can be framed, whereunder certain norms or postulates are laid down, on the satisfaction of which the benefit of remission can thereafter be granted by the Executive without placing the facts or material with respect to any of the cases before the Governor and whether such exercise can override the requirements under Section 433-A of the Code.”Supreme Court.The Court has now directed the Supreme Court Registry to place the matter before Chief Justice of India SA Bobde so that the matter can be placed before a bench of appropriate strength..Advocate Shikhil Suri appeared for the appellant on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Additional Advocate General Amit Kumar represented the State of Haryana..[Read judgment]