Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved a criminal appeal by an appellant convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant, aged above 75 years, had completed 8 years of actual sentence and was prematurely released in 2019 under a special remission policy issued by the Governor of Haryana exercising powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court called upon the State to clarify whether the policy permitted such release before completion of 14 years actual sentence for a Section 302 IPC offence. The State's response detailed the policy decision dated 02.08.2019, which granted special remission to prisoners aged 75 years or above who had completed 8 years actual sentence, with exclusions for certain offences. The core legal issue was whether the premature release under Article 161 was valid despite Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which mandates 14 years actual imprisonment for life sentences. The appellant's counsel, appearing through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, and the State's Additional Advocate General were heard. The court analyzed the constitutional powers under Articles 72 and 161, referencing the Constitution Bench decision in Maru Ram vs. Union of India and others, which held that Section 433-A does not affect the untouchable constitutional pardon powers. The court reasoned that the Governor's power under Article 161 is supreme and not restricted by statutory provisions, making the release lawful. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous since the appellant had already been released and no surviving grievance remained for adjudication.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Pardon Power - Article 161 of the Constitution of India - The Governor's power to grant remission under Article 161 is constitutional and untouchable by statutory provisions like Section 433-A CrPC - The appellant, convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, was prematurely released in 2019 under a policy decision by the Governor of Haryana exercising powers under Article 161 - Held that the constitutional power under Article 161 remains unaffected by Section 433-A CrPC, and the release was valid, leading to dismissal of the appeal as infructuous (Paras 4-5). B) Criminal Law - Life Imprisonment - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Premature release under Article 161 does not require completion of 14 years actual sentence as per Section 433-A CrPC - The appellant, aged above 75 years and having completed 8 years actual sentence, was released under a special remission policy for Independence Day 2019 - The court affirmed that Section 433-A CrPC does not restrict the constitutional power under Article 161, allowing release before 14 years (Paras 2-4). C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Disposal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appeal becomes infructuous upon premature release under Article 161 - After the appellant's release in 2019, the criminal appeal challenging conviction and sentence was rendered moot - The court dismissed the appeal as infructuous, noting no surviving grievance for adjudication (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the premature release of the appellant under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, before completion of 14 years actual sentence for an offence under Section 302 IPC, is valid and whether the appeal should be disposed of in light of such release
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed as infructuous. The appellant was prematurely released in 2019 under Article 161 of the Constitution, and no surviving grievance remains for adjudication.
Law Points
- Constitutional powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India are untouchable and unapproachable by statutory provisions
- Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 does not affect the pardon power of the Governor or President
- premature release under Article 161 is valid even before completion of 14 years actual sentence for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC
