STATE OF HARYANA versus MAHENDER SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 932 · Decided: 02-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-{ 
·f 
A 
STATEOFHARYANA 
v. 
MAHENDER SINGH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER2, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
t 
-\ 
Sentence/Sentencing-Remission of sentence-State classifYing 
c 
category of life convicts for pre-mature release by executive 
instruction-Life convicts, convicted prior to the date of instruction, 
challenging the classification-High Court holding the classification 
as uncot:zstitutional-On appeal, held: No convict has fundamental 
right of remission-Valid classification by general instruction is 
permissible-However, the classification will have prospective 
D operation and would not apply to the convicts in question-The 
-4 
instructions being advisory in nature, would not have force of a 
l 
statute-Code of Criminal Procedure; 1973-s. 433A-Punjab Prison 
Rules-Rules 2, 20 and 21-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14, 
20and 21. 
E 
The State of Haryana by an executive order, in the year 2002 
laid down criteria for pre-mature release oflife convicts. The same 
was challenged in Writ Petition by the respondents, who were 
convicts sentenced to life imprisonment in 1988. They, at the time 
F of their conviction, were covered by instructions issued by the State 
ofHaryana in the year 1984 amending Punjab Prison Rules. High 
_J.. 
Court allowed the Writ Petition declaring the criteria laid down to 
be unconstitutional on the premise that no discrimination could be 
made inter-se amongst the life convicts and thus the purported 
G classification was arbitrary and discriminatory. Hence the present 
appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
'';r-
HELD: 1. It is true that no convict has a fundamental right of 
H 
932 
STATE v. MAHENDER SINGH 
933 
remission or shortening of sentences. It is also true that the State A 
in exercise ofits executive power of remission must consider each 
individual case keeping in view the relevant factors. The power of 
the State to issue general instructions, so that no discrimination is 
made, is also permissible in law. A classification validly made would 
not off end Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia. 
, B 
1 
[Paras 25 and 36) [944-H; 945-A; 950-E)
1 
t 
. -'. 
2.1. However, the new policy decision adopted by the State of 
Haryana will have a prospective operation. At the point of time when, 
the respondents were convicted, viz., in the year 1988, for, C 
consideration of their cases for remission, the conditions which were 
required to be fulfilled, were that they should have undergone at' 
least.8 Yz years of the substantive or actual sentence and they should' 
have also undergone 14 years of sentence including the period of 
remission earned. Indisputably, however, the same was subject to 
Section 433A Cr.P.C. [Paras 26 and 27] [945-A-C) 
D 
Maru Ram v. Union of India and Ors., [1981) 1 SCC 107, 
followed. 
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Joginder Singh and Ors., [1990) 2 
SCC 661, relied on. 
E 
Mohd A1unnav. UnionoflndiaandOrs., [2005) 7SCC 417 and 
Epuru Sudhakar and Anr. v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors., [2006] 8 SCC 161, 
distinguished 
Sadhu Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1984) 2 SCC 310; State . F 
of Haryana and Anr. v. Ram Diya, [1990) 2 SCC 701 and Rajender 
and Ors. v. State of Haryana, [1995) 5 SCC 187, referred to. 
2.2. Whenever a policy decision is made, persons must be 
treated equally in terms thereof. A' fortiori the policy decision G 
applicable in such cases would be which was prevailing at the time 
of his conviction. [Para 33) [948-H] 
Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Shim/av. Prem Lata 
Sood and Ors., (2007) 7 SCALE 737, referred to. 
\ 
H 
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
2.3. A right to be considered for remission, keeping in view the 
constitutional safeguards of a convict under Articles 20 and 21 of 
the Constitution oflndia, must be held to be a legal one. Such a legal 
right emanates from not only the Prisons Act but also from the Rules 
framed thereunder. Although no convict can be said to have any 
B constitutional right for obtaining remission in his sentence, he in view 
of_t~e policy decision itself must be held to have a right to be 
t 
consider:ed therefor. Whether by reason of a statutory rule or 
otherwise if a policy decision has been laid down, the persons who 
come within the purview thereof are entitled to be treated 
c equally. (Para 32] (948-D-E] 
State of Mysore andAnr. v. H Srinivasmurthy, (1976] 1SC<;:817, 
referred to. 
2.4. Any guidelines which do not have any statutory flavour are 
D m

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.