- (1.) Delay condoned. Leave granted.
(2.) This matter has come up before us upon reference having been made by a Two-Judge Bench vide order dated 04.11.2009 upon noticing an inconsistency in the views expressed by this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Balwan, 1999 AIR(SC) 3333 on one hand and in the cases of State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh & Ors., 2007 13 SCC 606; and State of Haryana v. Bhup Singh, 2009 AIR(SC) 1252, on the other hand. The inconsistency, which was pointed out in the said order was noticed by taking into account the para 5 of the judgment in Balwan (supra) which is as follows :- "........However, in order to see that a life convict does not lose any benefit available under the remission scheme which has to be regarded as the guideline, it would be just and proper to direct the State Government to treat the date on which his case is/was required to be put up before the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution as the relevant date with reference to which their cases are to be considered ......"
(3.) The views expressed in Mahender Singh (supra) and Bhup Singh (supra) were as follows :- Mahender Singh (supra) "40. Whenever, thus, a policy decision is made, persons must be treated equally in terms thereof. A' fortiori the policy decision applicable in such cases would be which was prevailing at the time of his conviction." Bhup Singh (supra) "10..... The right to ask for remission of sentence by a life convict would be under the law as was prevailing on the date on which the judgment of conviction and sentence was passed ....... 11. .....It is, therefore, directed that if the respondents have not already been released, the State shall consider their cases in terms of the judgment of this Court in Mahender Singh case having regard to the policy decision as was applicable on the date on which they were convicted and not on the basis of the subsequent policy decision of the year 2002....";