Remission policy for premature release must follow the rule in force at conviction, not a later executive policy.

A life convict's premature release was held to be governed by the remission policy in force on the date of conviction, where that policy shaped the convict's accrued expectation of consideration. The Court distinguished constitutional clemency under Article 161 from statutory remission under the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that later executive policy could not displace an earlier policy framed with reference to clemency powers. Although no absolute right to premature release exists, the convict retains a right to fair consideration under the applicable policy framework. The later 13.08.2008 policy therefore could not override the earlier policy applicable at conviction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a life convict's case for premature release is to be considered under the remission policy prevailing on the date of conviction or the policy prevailing on the date of consideration; (ii) whether the later policy dated 13.08.2008 could override earlier policies framed with reference to the constitutional clemency power and the statutory remission framework.

Issue (i): Whether a life convict's case for premature release is to be considered under the remission policy prevailing on the date of conviction or the policy prevailing on the date of consideration.

Analysis: The Court examined the line of authority on life imprisonment, remission and short-sentencing schemes, including the principles that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the natural life of the convict unless remitted or commuted by competent authority, and that remission schemes are to be applied as guidelines in the exercise of constitutional clemency powers. It noted that remission policies are meant to operate prospectively and that a convict's expectancy of consideration for release is shaped by the policy in force at the time of conviction, particularly where the policy itself is referable to Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The Court also emphasised that a convict does not possess an absolute right to premature release, but does have a right to be considered in accordance with the applicable policy framework.

Conclusion: The case for premature release was required to be considered with reference to the policy existing on the date of conviction, and not solely by the later policy prevailing on the date of consideration.

Issue (ii): Whether the later policy dated 13.08.2008 could override earlier policies framed with reference to the constitutional clemency power and the statutory remission framework.

Analysis: The Court held that the power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India is a constitutional power of wide amplitude and cannot be curtailed by subordinate executive instructions. It distinguished between constitutional clemency and statutory remission under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and observed that earlier Haryana policies were expressly framed with reference to Article 161, whereas the later policy of 13.08.2008 was issued under the statutory remission provisions. The Court further noted that the statutory prison rules created a legal entitlement to consideration within their framework and that executive instructions could not take away a benefit already available under the earlier policy framework. The decision also recognised legitimate expectation arising from the policy in force at conviction.

Conclusion: The later policy dated 13.08.2008 could not displace the earlier policy applicable on the date of conviction for the respondent's consideration for premature release.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was upheld and the respondent's case was to be examined under the remission policy in force on the date of conviction, with the State's clemency power remaining constitutionally unfettered but subject to fair consideration under the applicable policy framework.

Ratio Decidendi: A remission or short-sentencing policy referable to Article 161 of the Constitution of India applies prospectively, and a convict's case for premature release must be considered under the policy existing at the time of conviction where that policy governs the accrued expectation of consideration; later executive policy cannot override that entitlement to consideration.

---