UNLAWFUL REMISSION: ON THE BILKIS BANO CASE

Print

THE CONTEXT: The Supreme Court has struck down the remission granted to convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case of 2002. The court has ruled that the Gujarat government’s decision to remit their sentences and set them free was illegal.

MORE ON THE NEWS:

• The convicts had been sentenced to life imprisonment by a Sessions Court in Mumbai after the investigation in the ‘Bilkis Bano case’ was shifted from the Gujarat police to the CBI and the trial transferred to Mumbai.
• In August 2022 convicts were released from Godhra sub-jail on remission by Gujarat government. In September, Bilkis Bano approached SC challenging the premature release of the convicts.
• The recent SC verdict is based on the ground that Gujarat did not have any jurisdiction to decide on granting remission to convicts sentenced in Maharashtra.

WHAT IS THE LAW ON REMISSION OF SENTENCES?

• Under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, the President and Governors of states can pardon a convict, and can also suspend, remit, or commute a sentence passed by the courts.
• State governments too have the power to remit sentences under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) as prisons is a State Subject.
• However, Section 433A of the CrPC puts certain restrictions on these powers of remission. It says: “Where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.”

WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR REMISSION?

• States set up a Sentence Review Board to exercise the powers under Section 432 of the CrPC.
• The Supreme Court has held that states cannot exercise the power of remission arbitrarily and must follow due process.
• While the policy varies from state to state, broadly the grounds for remission considered by the Board are the same.
• These factors to be considered while making a decision on granting remission are:

1. seriousness of the crime
2. status of the co-accused
3. conduct in jail

• In ‘Laxman Naskar v. Union of India’ (2000) the SC laid down five grounds on which remission is considered:
  1. Whether the offence is an individual act of crime that does not affect the society?
  2. Whether there is a chance of the crime being repeated in future?
  3. Whether the convict has lost the potentiality to commit crime?
  4. Whether any purpose is being served in keeping the convict in prison?
  5. Socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family
• Jail manuals contain rules that allow certain days of remission in every month for good behaviour of convicts.
• For those serving fixed sentences, the remission days are accounted for while releasing the convict. However, convicts serving life sentences are entitled to seek remission only after serving a minimum of 14 years.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VERDICT:

• Restoration of faith in judiciary: The ruling represents a blow for the rule of law and the restoration of faith in the judiciary at a time when there are doubts about the institution’s capacity to hold power to account.
• Timely implementation of remission laws: The judgement is a timely invocation of the core principles that encourages exercise of the power to grant remission as fair and reasonable. It should be based on a set of relevant parameters such as whether the crime involved affected society at large, whether the convict retained the potential for committing similar offences or is capable of reform.

CAN THE CONVICTS APPLY FOR REMISSION AGAIN?

• The criminal justice system has provisions like remission or reduction of sentence, taking into account the fact that a person can reform, and can be set free as a better citizen.
• In its judgment, the Supreme Court said that there are competing interests that of the rights of the victim or her family to justice, and that of a convict’s claim to a second chance.
• The Bench said that in prior judgments, it has expressed scepticism over the latter, particularly if the offence committed is a heinous one.
• The convicts can approach the Maharashtra government for remission in the future. Whether remission is granted will, however, depend on various aspects, including the remission policy of the state.
• The convicts had argued before the Supreme Court that the policy applicable to them would be the one in vogue at the time of their conviction, which was in 2008.

THE CONCLUSION:

In a highly anticipated judgment, the Supreme Court set aside the remission of convicts sentenced to life imprisonment accused of heinous crimes during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat. Any rational remission policy should encompass humanitarian considerations and the convicts’ scope for reform without violating the rule of law or societal interests.

PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS

Q. Instances of the President’s delay in commuting death sentences has come under public debate as denial of justice. Should there be a time specified for the President to accept/reject such petitions? Analyse. (2014)

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTIONS

Q. The Supreme Court verdict quashing the remission granted to convicts in the Bilkis Bano case of 2002 is an example of restoration of rule of law and faith in judiciary. Comment.

SOURCE: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/unlawful-remission-the-hindu-editorial-on-the-bilkis-bano-case/article67719957.ece