In 2002, during the riots in Gujarat, a horrific incident occurred where a pregnant woman, Bilkis Bano, became the victim of a brutal gangrape perpetrated by a mob. Adding to this atrocity, seven members of her family, including her three-year-old daughter, were also murdered.
Legal Proceedings and Investigation
Following the incident, extensive legal proceedings took place. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), undertook the task of investigating the case. In 2004, due to the death threats that Bano received, the Supreme Court moved the trial from Gujarat to Mumbai and directed the central government to assign a special public prosecutor.
By 2008, a court in Mumbai returned a verdict of guilty against 11 individuals involved in the rape and murder. This was marked as a significant step towards justice for Bilkis Bano. However, controversy erupted in August 2022 when the Gujarat government granted remission to these convicts, leading to their release.
The Supreme Court’s Nullification of Remission Grant
The Supreme Court recently nullified the Gujarat government’s decision to grant remission to the 11 convicts. The court highlighted that the Gujarat government lacked the authority to issue such orders. Under Section 432 of the CrPC, state governments have the power to suspend or remit a sentence. However, the court pointed out that the law clearly states that this power extends only to the government in whose jurisdiction the offender is sentenced.
Moreover, the court highlighted serious flaws in the remission process. It mentioned that the orders lacked proper consideration, had concealed facts, and amounted to fraud on the court. The court also criticized the Gujarat government’s overreach and unlawful exercise of power. It also rejected the convicts’ plea to protect their liberty and directed them to surrender to jail authorities within two weeks.
Understanding Remission
Remission refers to the premature release of a convict from prison. This term is often confused with parole or furlough, but it is distinctively different. In the case of remission, the nature of the sentence remains untouched, whereas its duration is reduced. The effect of remission is that the prisoner is given a certain date on which he shall be released and in the eyes of the law, would be a free man. However, any breach of the conditions of remission can lead to its cancellation and the offender would then be required to serve the entire term of the original sentence.
Constitutional Provisions and Powers of Pardon
Under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution, the President is granted the power to pardon, remit or commute sentences in specific cases. Similarly, under Article 161, the Governor too has the power to grant pardons, respite or remissions of punishment, suspend, remit or commute the sentence for anyone convicted under any law on a matter which falls under the State’s executive power.
Landmark Cases Related to Remission
There have been several landmark cases relating to remission, including Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal (2000) and Epuru Sudhakar v. State of AP (2006). In the former, factors such as whether the offense affected society at large or whether there was a chance of the convict reoffending were taken into account while granting remission. In the latter, the Supreme Court held that judicial review of the order of remission is available on grounds ranging from non-application of mind to arbitrariness.
A Look at Various Legal Terms
Legal terms such as pardon, commutation, respite, and reprieve are often used in conversations about remission. It is crucial to understand their meanings precisely. Pardon completely absolves the convict from all sentences, punishments, and disqualifications. Commutation replaces one form of punishment with a lesser form, respite awards a lesser sentence due to some special fact, and reprieve temporarily stays the execution of a sentence.
Conclusion
The Bilkis Bano case and its subsequent developments highlight the intricate concepts related to remission and the power of pardon under the Indian legal framework. The case serves as a stark reminder of the issues arising out of the design and implementation of government policies and interventions. It underscores the importance of upholding justice and ensuring that the proper channels are followed before granting remissions to convicts.
