Supreme Court Clarifies Interplay Between Constitutional Clemency and Statutory Remission

In the landmark judgment of Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court has provided a definitive clarification on the relationship between the constitutional power of clemency vested in the Governor under Article 161 and the statutory remission policies framed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court emphasized that the executive power of the State to grant pardons, reprieves, or remissions is a constitutional prerogative that operates independently of statutory frameworks. The core of the dispute revolved around whether state-level remission policies, often designed to manage prison overcrowding or facilitate rehabilitation, could be curtailed or superseded by the procedural requirements of the CrPC. The Supreme Court held that while the legislature has the authority to enact laws governing the remission of sentences, these statutory provisions cannot diminish or override the constitutional power granted to the executive under Article 161. This ensures that the Governor’s power remains a 'sovereign' tool for justice, intended to correct potential judicial errors or address humanitarian concerns that might fall outside the rigid scope of statutory law.