Summary
The Court referred to a larger Bench the validity of granting remission through executive application of a policy approved under Article 161 without placing individual case material before the Governor, including whether that process could override Section 433-A. Haryana admitted that no individual material had been submitted. Observations in the Constitution Bench decision in Maru Ram concerning group orders required consideration alongside subsequent decisions emphasising consideration of relevant case material. The reference did not finally determine the validity of the appellant’s release.
Issues
- Whether a remission policy under Article 161 may authorise executive release without placing individual case material before the Governor, including where Section 433-A would otherwise restrict release.
Held
- Restrictions under Section 433-A do not limit the constitutional clemency powers. The distinct question concerned the validity of implementing a policy without submitting individual case material to the Governor. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 13)
- Maru Ram contemplated sufficiently clear group orders indicating application of mind, while subsequent decisions emphasised relevant facts and circumstances. In view of the Constitution Bench authority, the questions required a larger Bench rather than a final decision by this Bench. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14, 15, 16)
Result
Matter referred to a larger Bench; Registry directed to place it before the Chief Justice for constitution of a Bench of appropriate strength.