LI Network
Published on: January 9, 2024 at 22:17 IST
The Supreme Court rendered a significant verdict, not only annulling the remission granted to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case but also issuing detailed guidelines for assessing remission petitions.
Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan presiding over a writ petition filed by Bilkis Bano and several public interest litigation (PIL) petitions challenging the untimely release of the convicts, laid out key considerations to be weighed when evaluating such pleas under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This ruling highlighted crucial factors to be considered while evaluating remission applications. The Court emphasized that such applications under Section 432 of the CrPC should be directed solely to the state government where the applicant was convicted, termed as the ‘appropriate government’.
This direction contrasted with the Supreme Court’s prior decision in May 2022, asserting that the competent authority to decide on remission pleas was the state government where the offence occurred.
The bench, led by Justice Nagarathna, criticized the previous judgment for disregarding binding precedents, particularly the V Sriharan (2016) constitution bench judgment and the statutory mandate.
The ruling stated, “The application for remission under Section 432 of the CrPC could be only before the government of the state within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant was convicted (appropriate government) and not before any other Government within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant may have been transferred on conviction or where the offence has occurred.”
Moreover, the Court highlighted the requirement of an application submitted by the convict or their representative, ensuring compliance with Section 433A, stipulating that a person serving a life sentence can seek remission only after completing fourteen years of imprisonment.
Emphasizing the importance of obtaining the presiding judge’s opinion from the court that convicted the applicant, the court outlined that the opinion must clearly state whether remission should be granted or refused, supported by well-founded reasons directly related to the case’s facts and circumstances.
Additionally, it highlighted that the applicable policy of remission is determined by the appropriate government and is usually aligned with the policy in force at the time of the conviction.
The court stressed the need to prevent any abuse of discretion when considering remission applications, highlighting specific aspects to be taken into account, including the nature of the crime, potential for future recurrence, the convict’s rehabilitation potential, socio-economic conditions, and the necessity of continued incarceration.
Furthermore, the Court stressed the need for consultation as per Section 435 of the CrPC when required, specifying that the jail advisory committee reviewing remission applications should not include the district judge due to their potential dual role.
The bench concluded by affirming that reasons for granting or refusing remission should be clearly delineated in the order by passing a ‘speaking order’. Moreover, it outlined specific tests for judicial review when remission is granted, ensuring a fair and transparent process, free from arbitrariness.
In a crucial ruling, the Apex Court favored Bilkis Bano, a gang rape survivor, holding that the State of Gujarat lacked jurisdiction to decide on remission as the trial took place in Maharashtra.
Consequently, the remission orders were declared invalid, and the court directed the 11 convicts to report to the concerned jail authorities within two weeks and surrender.
This decision comes after an 11-day-long hearing that commenced in August, where the division bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan reserved judgment on October 12.
