In a groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court not only overturned the remission of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case but also unveiled comprehensive guidelines for evaluating such applications. The court outlined crucial factors to be considered, providing a comprehensive framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Rendered by a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, this verdict emerged from a writ petition filed by Bilkis Bano and several public interest litigations challenging the premature release of the convicts. These individuals, sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple crimes during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, were released by the Gujarat government in August 2022.
The judgment emphasized that remission applications under Section 432 of the CrPC must be directed to the government of the state where the applicant was convicted, termed the ‘appropriate government.’ This marked a significant departure from the May 2022 decision, deeming the government competent for remission decisions to be the one within the territorial jurisdiction where the offense occurred. The bench, led by Justice Nagarathna, criticized this earlier decision for disregarding binding precedents and statutory mandates.
Furthermore, the court clarified that the convict or their representative must submit the application in compliance with Section 433A, which mandates seeking remission only after completing fourteen years of imprisonment for a person serving a life sentence.
The court underscored the importance of obtaining the presiding judge’s opinion from the convicting court, following the guidelines outlined in Section 432(2) of the CrPC. This opinion must state whether remission should be granted or refused, supported by well-founded reasons directly related to the case’s facts and trial record.
Additionally, the court emphasized that the applicable remission policy is determined by the appropriate government and generally aligns with the policy in force at the time of conviction. Only if the original policy cannot be applied may a more lenient policy be considered.
To prevent abuse of discretion, the court outlined specific aspects to consider, including the societal impact of the crime, the potential for future recurrence, the convict’s loss of criminal potential, the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family, and whether there is a compelling reason for continued incarceration.
The court also highlighted the significance of consultation under Section 435 of the CrPC when necessary, stressing that the jail advisory committee reviewing remission applications should not include the district judge.
In conclusion, the court insisted on clear delineation of reasons for granting or refusing remission and outlined specific tests for judicial review to ensure fairness, transparency, and freedom from arbitrariness. The ruling, favoring Bilkis Bano, emphasized that the State of Gujarat lacked jurisdiction to decide on remission, declaring the remission orders invalid. The 11 convicts were directed to report to jail authorities within two weeks and surrender, affirming the supremacy of the rule of law.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
