Recently, the Supreme Court of India has referred to a seven-judge bench, an issue associated with whether states can grant the benefit of remission to convicts under the Constitution by laying down a common policy.
Aspects of the Legal Issue
This legal issue was raised during the hearing of the bail plea of Pyare Lal, a murder case convict. The Supreme Court was informed that Pyare Lal was released from jail after he was granted the benefit of remission by the Haryana Governor, under Article 161 of the Constitution, following a 2019 state government policy.
Policy Details and Eligible Convicts
According to the policy, male convicts sentenced for life in a murder case, who are 75 years old and have completed eight years of their sentence, are entitled to relief. Relief is also extended to female convicts who are 65 years of age and who have served six years of their life sentence for a murder case. However, it is necessary that during their confinement, such prisoners maintain satisfactory conduct and do not commit any major jail offence in the previous two years.
Judicial Power of Pardon
Article 161 of the Constitution deals with the Governor’s judicial power to pardon a convict. This power is also exercised by the President under Article 72 of the Constitution.
Implications of State Powers
The larger bench will consider whether states can exercise such powers without presenting “facts and materials” of each case before the Governor. It was noticed in Pyare Lal’s case that the Haryana government had not presented any facts or material before the Governor. Instead, the benefit was conferred by the Executive in terms of the Policy without considering the crime’s severity, manner of commission, or its impact on society.
Relevant Previous Judgements
In the Maru Ram vs Union of India 1980 case, the Supreme Court ruled that a general order identifying the group of cases would suffice to grant remission benefits, without needing separate orders for each individual case. However, subsequent SC rulings assert that the relevant material should be placed before the Governor without any political vendetta or party favoritism, otherwise, it could lead to the cancellation of the related remission orders.
Code of Criminal Procedure and Remission
The larger bench will also consider whether states can override Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure when granting remission. According to this section, a person serving a life term cannot receive remission benefits without completing 14 years in prison.
Pardoning Power of the President and Governor
Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution empower the President and the Governors, respectively, to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute any person’s sentence convicted of an offence. While the President’s pardoning power extends to offenses against Union Law, by court-martial, and death sentences, the Governor’s pardoning powers only extend to offenses against state law and exclude pardoning death sentences and sentences of a Court Martial.
Understanding Pardon-related Terms
Different terms associated with pardoning have different implications. “Pardon” absolves the convict from all sentences, punishments, and disqualifications. “Commutation” substitutes a form of punishment with a lighter one. “Remission” reduces the sentence duration but doesn’t change its character. “Respite” allows a lesser sentence because of special facts, like physical disability or pregnancy. “Reprieve” stays execution of a death sentence temporarily to enable the convict to seek pardon or commutation from the President.