In a groundbreaking verdict, the Supreme Court today overturned the premature release of 11 convicts serving life sentences for multiple murders and gang rapes, including the infamous Bilkis Bano case stemming from the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat. The court declared the State of Gujarat as an incompetent authority to decide on remission, emphasizing that the trial occurred in the State of Maharashtra.
Justice BV Nagarathna, who led the division bench alongside Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered a meticulous judgment citing Plato’s philosophical insights on punishment. The court’s ruling, stressing the importance of reformation over vengeance, underscored that remission should be considered within the framework of the convict’s potential for rehabilitation.
The judgment, resulting from an 11-day-long hearing, addressed five key issues. Firstly, it deemed Bano’s petition under Article 32 of the Constitution maintainable, rejecting counter-arguments from senior advocates. Secondly, the court refrained from addressing the PIL petitions’ maintainability, deeming it unnecessary given Bano’s direct approach to the court.
The court then delved into the competency of the State of Gujarat to pass remission orders. Justice Nagarathna clarified that the place of occurrence or imprisonment was irrelevant, emphasizing the importance of the state where the convict was tried and sentenced. The court asserted that the Gujarat government’s competency was challenged based on a fraudulent writ petition filed by one of the convicts.
Additionally, the court criticized the Gujarat government for not seeking a review of its 2022 judgment and questioned the legality of the remission orders. It concluded by addressing the delicate issue of what should follow the reversal of remission, emphasizing the paramountcy of the rule of law.
Advocate Shobha Gupta, representing Bilkis Bano, argued that the severity of the crimes committed warranted proportional punishment and criticized the leniency shown to the convicts. The court took into account various factors, including the societal impact of premature releases and the lack of remorse displayed by the convicts.
Representatives for the union and Gujarat governments defended the remission, citing adherence to the Supreme Court’s directives and the reformation theory of punishment. The court, however, raised questions about selective application of remission policies and the absence of a negative opinion from the Central Bureau of Investigation.
This landmark ruling comes after a lengthy legal battle since the heinous crimes against Bilkis Bano in 2002, and it reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law in the face of complex legal and ethical considerations.
