Pyare Lal v. State of Haryana

Message

show

Pyare Lal v. State of Haryana

This case will decide whether States can frame remission policies that bypass the need to consider material facts of the offence for remission of sentence.

Petitioners Arguments

The referral order does not contain the arguments made by the appellant in this case.

Responders Arguments

The referral order does not contain the arguments made by the respondent in this case.

Last Listed On

2023-11-22

Start Date

2020-07-17

Card Stage Date

2020-07-17

Review Petition No

Crl. A. No. 1003/2017

Case Status

Pending

Bench Status

To be reconstituted

Subject Matter

Constitution

Pendency

5 years, 11 months, 13 days

5 Judge Bench

Awaiting bench reconstitution

Consider As Stage Of Pendency

true

Date of institution of case

Date of reference to larger Bench

Pyare Lal, a murder convict, was released on remission after eight years of imprisonment on Independence Day following the policy laid down by the Haryana Government. The Haryana government policy (“Policy”), instituted on 02-09-2019, stated that male prisoners, convicted for life in a murder case, would get a premature release if they are above 75 years and had completed 8 years of the sentence. For female prisoners, the policy permitted premature release if they were above 65 years of age and had completed 6 years of their sentence. In the case of Pyare Lal, as the Supreme Court noted, the Haryana government had “accepted that no individual facts or material pertaining to any of the cases were placed before the Governor and that the benefit in each of the cases was conferred by the Executive itself in terms of the Policy”. The Governor, thus, did not have the opportunity to look into the severity of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed or the impact of the crime on the society. The court further noted that the policy is in contravention of Section 433A Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 which is a restriction on the powers of remission and commutation in certain cases. It prescribes that in cases where life imprisonment has been awarded as an alternative to death sentence or where a sentence of death has been commuted under Section 433A, the person has to serve at least fourteen years before being released. The case has been referred by a three judge bench to a larger bench.

In exercise of powers under Article 161 of the Constitution can a policy be framed which lays down certain guidelines, on the satisfaction of which, benefit of remission can be granted to convicts without even placing the facts and material pertaining to the individual case of the convict, before the Governor? Can the requirements under Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure be overridden in any circumstances and what are the nature of such circumstances?

The Haryana Government’s remission policy for convicts

Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Since the case would require reconsideration of a five-judge bench, the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench.

Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107

SC refers to larger bench issue of grant of remission to convicts by states

Source Of Info

The Indian Express

Date Of Fr

2020-07-18

Can Governor grant remission of sentence to convicts without delving into individual facts? Supreme Court refers question to larger bench

Source Of Info

Bar and Bench

Date Of Fr

2020-07-19

The Quality of Mercy and Section 433A: The Haryana Government’s Remission Policy

Source Of Info

NUALS Journal Review

Date Of Fr

2020-08-12