NDPS remission remains barred by statute; Article 32 and Article 142 cannot override the prohibition.

Executive remission under the NDPS Act is barred by Section 32-A, and that statutory exclusion validly prevents suspension, commutation and remission in such cases. Articles 72 and 161 remain distinct constitutional powers, but they do not create a right to remission through a writ under Article 32 unless a fundamental right is shown to be infringed. Article 142 also cannot be used to override an express statutory prohibition or to confer remission where the statute withholds it. No fundamental-right violation was established, so mandamus for remission was unavailable and the petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of sentence could be claimed through Article 32 or by invoking Article 142 notwithstanding the statutory bar under Section 32-A of the NDPS Act and the limited scope of the Jail Manual.

Analysis: The Court held that the constitutional powers of remission under Articles 72 and 161 are distinct from statutory remission under the Code of Criminal Procedure and that Section 32-A of the NDPS Act validly excludes executive remission, suspension and commutation in NDPS cases. A writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable only for enforcement of a fundamental right, and no such infringement was shown. The Court also held that Article 142 cannot be used to override an express statutory prohibition or to create a right to remission where the statute withholds it.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to a writ of mandamus for remission, and the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 32 cannot be used to secure remission absent violation of a fundamental right, and Article 142 cannot be exercised in direct conflict with an express statutory bar on remission.

---