Constitutional Clemency Vs Statutory Remission: An Analysis Of The Supreme Court's Decision In Parveen Kumar V. State Of Haryana

Full Text Link

Himanshi Mishra, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), University Institute of Legal Studies (UILS), Panjab University, Chandigarh

ABSTRACT

The interface between constitutional executive clemency and statutory remission has long remained an unsettled area of Indian criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court's decision in Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana(2026) provides important clarity by addressing whether a remission policy framed under Article 161 of the Constitution can be displaced by a subsequent policy issued under statutory powers. Although the dispute arose from the appellant's claim for premature release, the Court was ultimately called upon to resolve a broader constitutional question concerning the source and hierarchy of executive remission powers. This article examines the constitutional and statutory framework governing remission, analyses the reasoning adopted by the Court, and evaluates its treatment of constitutional supremacy and the doctrine of precedent. It argues that the judgment not only settles the legal position governing competing remission policies but also reinforces judicial discipline by reaffirming the binding force of larger Bench decisions. In doing so, the decision strengthens constitutional governance and provides much-needed clarity for the future exercise of executive clemency in India.

Keywords: Executive Clemency; Remission; Article 72; Article 161; Constitutional Law; Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana; Doctrine of Precedent.

570. CONSTITUTIONAL CLEMENCY VS STATUTORY REMISSION- AN ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DE

Download CONSTITUTIONAL CLEMENCY VS STATUTORY REMISSION- AN ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DE • 397KB