When a prisoner's premature release is decided, and two different remission policies are on the books, the policy issued under the Governor's constitutional power under Article 161 of the Constitution prevails over a later statutory policy framed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Supreme Court settled this on 1 July 2026 in Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana, 2026 INSC 667. On the facts, Haryana's 2002 remission policy (traceable to Article 161) was held to apply over the State's later 2008 statutory policy for the convict concerned.
Quick answer: A remission policy that flows from the Governor's constitutional power under Article 161 cannot be overridden by a remission policy later framed as a statute under CrPC Sections 432 and 433. Where an older constitutional policy is more favourable to the prisoner, that policy governs the premature-release decision. This is the ratio of Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana (2026 INSC 667); it is not a blanket “the older policy always wins” rule.
“Remission” means a reduction of a sentence, and premature (early) release is granted by cutting short the remaining term. In India this power comes from two distinct legal sources, and the Parveen Kumar case is about which one prevails when they clash.
| Feature | Constitutional power (Article 161) | Statutory power (CrPC ss. 432-433) |
|---|---|---|
| Source of power | Article 161 of the Constitution (Governor); Article 72 for the President | Sections 432 and 433, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 |
| Who exercises it | Governor of the State, on the aid and advice of the State Government | The “appropriate Government” through its executive machinery |
| Nature | Independent constitutional power; sovereign clemency | Ordinary statutory power created by Parliament |
| Can it be curtailed by a later statute? | No - a statute cannot diminish an independent constitutional power | Yes - it is subordinate to the Constitution |
| Present status of the statute | Still the framework the policies were built under | CrPC replaced by the BNSS from 1 July 2024 (ss. 432-433 now correspond to BNSS provisions) |
The case itself was decided on policies framed under the CrPC regime, so it uses CrPC language. Since 1 July 2024 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has replaced the CrPC, and the old Sections 432-433 now have BNSS equivalents - but the constitutional supremacy the Court described applies just the same.
Parveen Kumar was convicted in 2009 for murder and had spent more than fourteen years in custody before seeking premature release. The dispute was whether his release should be governed by Haryana's 2002 remission policy or the State's 2008 policy. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh held:
The narrow point to take away: the ratio is about the constitutional source of the 2002 policy prevailing over a later statutory one. It does not mean an older policy always beats a newer one for unrelated reasons.
If you are pursuing premature release for a convicted relative, the case gives you a concrete argument and a checklist.
For a step-by-step method of framing sharp RTI questions to the prison authorities and following up on a stalled file, read The RTI Playbook.
For example, if Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak, a life convict, has completed the qualifying period under an Article 161 policy of 2002 but the jail is testing him against a stricter 2008 CrPC policy, this judgment lets his family insist that the 2002 constitutional policy be applied to his premature-release decision.
Remission is a reduction of a prisoner's sentence, allowing early or premature release before the full term is served. It can flow from the Governor's constitutional power under Article 161 (President under Article 72) or from the statutory power under CrPC Sections 432-433, now the corresponding BNSS provisions.
Where two policies exist, a policy issued under the Governor's Article 161 constitutional power prevails over a later statutory policy framed under CrPC Sections 432-433. In Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana (2026 INSC 667) the Supreme Court applied Haryana's 2002 constitutional policy over its 2008 statutory policy.
No. The ruling is narrower than that. It says a policy rooted in the constitutional Article 161 power cannot be overridden by a later statutory policy. The 2002 policy won because of its constitutional source and because it was more favourable, not merely because it was older.
The CrPC was replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) from 1 July 2024, and Sections 432-433 now correspond to BNSS provisions. The Parveen Kumar case dealt with policies framed under the CrPC regime, but the principle - the Constitution overrides an ordinary statute - carries over.
Apply to the State prison authorities or Sentence Review Board with the conviction and custody records, citing the most favourable applicable policy. Use RTI to obtain both remission policies and the status of the release file, and seek legal advice if release is wrongly refused.