Supreme Court of India
STATE OF HARYANAversusBHUP SINGH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1490
- Decided
- 18 December 2008
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
A life convict's right to remission is determined by the law prevailing at the time of conviction and sentencing; subsequent executive policy changes cannot be given retrospective effect, and the Balwan Singh decision is not binding precedent under Article 141.
Summary
The respondents, Bhup Singh and others, were convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering three persons and sentenced to life imprisonment. The State of Haryana introduced a policy categorising life convicts for premature release, stipulating that those convicted of heinous crimes could be considered only after 20 years of actual imprisonment and 25 years including remissions. The High Court ordered their release after they had served 14 years of actual sentence, but the State refused, arguing that the relevant date for remission should be the date of conviction, not the date of consideration under Article 161, and that the later 2002 policy could not be applied retrospectively. The Supreme Court held that the right to seek remission is governed by the law in force at the time of conviction and sentencing, and that the Balwan Singh decision is not a binding precedent under Article 141. Consequently, the Court directed the State to consider the respondents' cases based on the policy applicable at the time of their conviction, not the subsequent policy, and allowed the appeal in part.
Issues considered
- The appropriate date for determining a life convict's eligibility for remission – the date of conviction and sentencing versus the date of consideration under Article 161.
- Whether a later executive policy on premature release can be applied retrospectively to convicts sentenced earlier.
- Whether the decision in State of Haryana v. Balwan Singh (1999) constitutes a binding precedent under Article 141.
- The extent of the State's power to classify prisoners and set remission criteria vis‑à‑vis statutory Prison Rules.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedures. Section 433-A
- Constitution of Indias. Article 141, s. Article 161
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 302
- Prison Act
Subjects
remissionlife imprisonmentArticle 161Article 141binding precedentprison policyretrospective effectIPC 302prisoner classification
Judgment
[200.8] 17 S.C.R. 1306
A STATE OF HARYANA
v.
BHUP SINGH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2064-66 of 2008)
DECEMBER 18, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 161 - Remission of
sentence of life convict - Relevant date for consideration of
c - Held: The relevant date for consideration would be the date
of judgment of conviction and sentence, and not the date on
which the convict is to be considered for remission -
Sentencing.
Precedent - What constitutes binding precedent - Held:
0 A decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can
logically be deduced therefrom - Constitution of India, ·1950
- Article 141.
Respondents were convicted for commission of
offence uls.302 IPC for murder of three persons and were
E sentenced to undergo RI for life. State Government took
a policy decision for premature release of life convicts by
putting them in various categories. The case of the
respondents were not considered for premature release
on the premise that the offence committed by them fell
F in the cate.gory of heinous crimes and could be
considered only after completion of 20 years'
I __. •
imprisonment including remissions.
The validity of the policy decision was challenged.
'
High Court held that the respondents were entitled to be
considered for premature release on the expiry of 10
G years of actual sentence and 14 years of sentence
'.
including remissions. In appeal, Supreme Court directed
the State to consider the cases of the respondents for
pre-mature release.
H 1306
STATE OF HARYANA v. BHUP SINGH & ORS. 1307
State declined the release of the respondents A
observing that they had not completed requisite period
/ of sentence undergone, to qualify for premature release
under the existing policy. In the writ petition against the
order, High Court directed the State to release the
respondents forthwith, as they had completed actual B
sentence of 14 years. Hence the present appeals.
State contended that High Court could have only
directed the State to consider the cases of the
/
respondents treating the date on which they were
• required to be put up before the State under Article 161 c
of the Constitution, as the relevant date with reference to
which their cases were required to be considered was as
opined in the judgment in State of Haryana & Ors. vs.
Ba/wan & Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 355. This Court issued limited
notice as to consider the case of the respondents for
remission. D
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1.1. The right to ask for remission of sentence
by a life convict would be under the law as was prevailing
on the date on which the judgment of conviction and
E
sentence was passed. If the executive instructions
cannot be given a retrospective effect being not in
consonance with the Prisoner's Rules framed under the
Prison Act, the decision in Ba/wan Singh's case also
cannot constitute a binding precedent. A decision is an
authority for what it decides and not what can logically F
be deduced therefrom. The directions contained in
... " Balwan Singh's case cannot be held to be declaration of
law within the meaning Article 141 of the Constitution of
India. This Court therein did not have any occasion to
consider the legality and/or validity of the policy decision G
of the State vis-a-vis the Prison Rules. [Paras 9 and 1O]
[1311-F-A;-E-F]
1.2. The appellant is directed to consider the cases
of the respondents. If the respondents have not already
been released, the State shall consider their cases in H
1308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A terms of the judgment of this Court in Mahender Singh's
case having regard to the policy decision as was
applicable on the date on which they were convicted and \
not on the basis of the subsequent policy decision of the
year 2002. [Para 11] [1312-8-C]
B State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh and Ors. (2007) 12
SCALE 669, relied on.
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ba/wan and Ors. (1999) 7
sec 355, distinguished. ! '-
Case Law Reference:
c (1999) 1 sec 355 distinguished Para 7
(2007) 12 SCALE 669 relied on Para 8
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 2064-2066 of 2008.
D From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.7.2007 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Writ Petition Nos. 284 of 285 of 2007.
Rajeev.: Gaur 'Naseem'.· and Naresh Bakshi for the
Appellant.
E Sanjay Sharawat and T.V. George for the Respondents:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J.1. Le_ave granted.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with the authority of
the State in terms of the Government Instructions in regard to
F
release of the convicts is in question in this appeal which arises
from a judgment and order dated 13.7.2007 passed by a ( ---" .
learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
at Chandigarh directing release of the respondents from prison,
stating:
G "According to written statement in the case of Bhup Singh,
he had undergone actual sentence of 14 years and 26
days as on 6.5.2007. Accordingly, he has undergone a few \>
days more than 14 years and 3 months of actual sentence
as on today. According to written statement in the case of
H Om Prakash, he had undergone actual sentenceof 13
STATE OF HARYANA v. BHUP SINGH & ORS. 1309
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
years 11 months and 27 days as on 19.4.2007 and thus, A
he has undergone actual sentence of 14 years 3 months
I and 21 days as on today. Thus, both the petitioners,,have
undergone more than 3 months over and above the actual
sentence of 14 years. Thus, provisions of section 433-A
of the Code also being taken into consideration, the 8
petitioners deserve to be released immediately as they
have already completed the actual sentence of 14 years.
. )
On the other hand, if judgment dated 24.7.2003 of this
Court is taken into consideration, then the petitioners
should have been released about 4 years ago. Thus,
c
viewed from any angle, continued incarceration of the
petitioners in the jail is completely illegal and untenable.
For the forgoing reasons, both these criminal writ petitions
are allowed and both the petitioners are ordered to be
released forthwith from jail unless they are required in some
other case. However, this direction is subject to final D
outcome of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1488 of
2004 pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court."
3. Respondents were convicted for commission of
offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, by a
judgment and order dated 25.1.1988 for murder of three E
persons. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life.
4. The Government of Haryana took a policy decision as
regards premature release of the life·convicts by putting them
in various categories. The cases for premature release of the F
~ ·~
appellants were not considered on the premise that the offence
committed by them fell in the category of 'heinous crimes' as
murder of more than two persons was involved and, thus, could
be considered only after completion of 20 years' actual
imprisonment and 25 years' imprisonment including G
remissions.
5. The validity or otherwise of the said policy decision was .
questioned by the respondents by a writ petition before the
Punjab and Haryana High Court which was marked as Criminal
Miscellaneous No.30109-M of 2002. The said writ petition was H
1310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A allowed by a judgment and order dated 24.7.2003 holding that \
they were entitled to be considered for premature release on
the expiry of 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of \,
sentence including remissions.
6. Correctness of the said judgment was questioned
B before this Court. By a judgment and order dated 13.10.2006,
the State was directed to consider the cases of the respondents
and others for premature release in terms of the judgment of
the High Court dated 24.7.2003. Pursuant thereto and in
furtherance thereof, the orders impugned before the High Court "
passed by the State on 13.12~2006 declining release of
c were
the respondents, observing that they had not completed the
requisite period of sentence undergone to qualify for premature
release under the existing policy.
·:/.Mr. Naseem, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
D appellant would contend that the High Court could not have
issued the impugned direction inasmuch as the State
Government could have only been directed to consider the
matter relating to their premature release treating the date on ,>
which he was required to be put up before the State under
Article 161 of the Constitution as the relevant date with
E reference to which their cases were required to be considered
as opined by this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ba/wan
& Ors. [(1999) 7 sec 355]
8. The State in exercise of its power under the Prison
Rules is entitled to lay down the guidelines. It may change its
F policy from time to time. From a recent decision of this Court
in '-State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh & Ors. [(2007) 12 I .A.
SCALE 669], it appears that such policy decisions had been
taken by the State on 28.11.1987, 19.11.1991 and again on 1--
12.4.2002 (impugned notification). This Court held that the said
G policy decision would, however, be subject to the statutory rules
framed by the State in terms of the Prison Act. While upholding
the right of the State to lay down a policy decision as regards
classification of prisoners, it was opined : ~
"34. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court
H might not be correct in holding that the State has no power ·
STATE OF HARYANA v. BHUP SINGH & ORS. 1311
[S.S. SINHA, J.]
to make any classification at all. A classification validly A
made would not offend Article 14 of the Constitution of
I
India."
It was furthermore held:
"Furthermore, if the Punjab Rules are applicable in the
State of Haryana in view of the State Reorganisation Act, B
no executive instruction would prevail over the Statutory
Rules. The Rules having defined 'convicts' in terms whereof
a 'life convict' was entitled to have his case considered
IP ·~ within the parameters laid down therein, the same cannot
be taken away by reason of an executive instruction by c
redefining the term 'life convict'. It is one thing to say that
the 'life convict' has no right to obtain remission but it is
another thing to say that they do not have any right to be
considered at all. Right to be considered emanates from
the State's own executive instructions as also the Statutory
D
Rules."
9. This Court issued a limited notice as to why the State
shall not be directed to consider the case of the respondents
in terms of Mahender Singh (supra). In view of the limited
notice issued by this Court, Mr. Naseem, although was not
E
permitted to raise the contention that the date specified by this
t·
Court in Ba/wan Singh (supra) should be considered to be the
cut off date, we may only observe that the directions contained
therein cannot be held to be declaration of law within the
meaning Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
F
10. This Court therein did not have any occasion to
~ ·~ consider the legality and/or validity of the policy decision of the
State vis-a-vis the Prison Rules.
The right to ask for remission of sentence by a life convict
would be under the law as was prevailing on the date on which
G
the judgment of conviction and sentence was passed. If th.e
executive instructions cannot be given a retrospective effect
being not in consonance with the Prisoner's Rules framed under
the Prison Act, we fail to understand as to how the said decision
constitutes a binding precedent. A decision as is well known
H
1312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be
deduced therefrom.
11. We, therefore, are of the opinion that keeping in view '
the decision of this Court in Mahender Singh (supra), the
impugned judgment should be modified directing the appellant
B to consider the cases of the respondents. It is, therefore,
directed that if the respondents have not already been released,
the State shall consider their cases in terms of the judgment of
this Court in Mahender Singh's case (supra) having regard to
the policy decision as was applicable on the date on which they I 1!111
C were convicted and not on the basis of the subsequent policy
decision of the year 2002.
12. Appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. No
costs.
K.K.T. Appeals partly allowed.
/
I A
....
;
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "remission"Sign in to search