Unlawful remission: On the Bilkis Bano case

The Supreme Court ruling is a searing indictment of Gujarat for aiding convicts’ release

The Supreme Court of India verdict (a decision by a jury as to whether someone is guilty after having heard the facts given at a trial) quashing (to say officially that something, especially an earlier official decision, is no longer to be accepted) the orders releasing 11 men convicted (having officially been found guilty of a crime in a law court) for the heinous (esp. of a crime extremely bad or evil)gang-rape and murder of several members of a family during the Gujarat pogrom in 2002 is an unequivocal (expressed in a clear and certain way) indictment (something that shows a policy, system, society, etc. is bad or wrong) of the State government. The men had been sentenced to life by a Sessions Court in Mumbai after the investigation in the ‘Bilkis Bano case’ was shifted from the Gujarat police to the Central Bureau of Investigation and the trial transferred to Mumbai. A disgraceful (very bad) story that began with the Bharatiya Janata Party government facilitating their premature (happening or done too soon, esp. before the natural or desired time) release and the freed men being garlanded (to welcome someone by putting garland on them) by their supporters has now ended with the Court directing them to return to prison within two weeks. The verdict is based on the ground that Gujarat did not have any jurisdiction to decide on granting (to give or allow someone something, usually in an official way) remission (a reduction of the time that a person has to stay in prison) to convicts sentenced in Maharashtra. In a telling observation, the Bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, said, “the State of Gujarat has acted in tandem and was complicit” in one of the convicts’ petition for a direction to the State government to grant remission of the remainder of his life term based on a defunct 1992 policy. It has noted that the Gujarat government — which took the correct stand during earlier proceedings that only the government of Maharashtra, where the trial and sentencing took place, was the appropriate (suitable or right for a particular situation or occasion) government to consider remission — had failed to seek review (to think or talk about something again, in order to make changes to it or to make a decision about it) of a two-Bench judgment’s order in May 2022, even though it was wrongly decided based on suppression (the act of preventing something from being seen or expressed or from operating) of material facts. In citing the Court direction as the reason for it to pass orders in favour of the convicts, the State government was guilty (responsible for breaking a law) of usurpation (the act of taking control of something without having the right to, especially of a position of power) of power, the Bench said.

The ruling represents a blow for the rule of law and the restoration (the act or the process of returning something to its original condition, or a state similar to its original condition) of faith in the judiciary at a time when there are doubts about the institution’s capacity to hold power to account. On merits, it is a timely reiteration (to say something again, once or several times) of the core principles that animate (to cause someone or something to be more active or full of life) exercise of the power to grant remission — that it should be fair and reasonable (based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical) and based on a set of relevant parameters (a set of facts which describes and puts limits on how something should happen or be done) such as whether the crime involved affected society at large, whether the convict retained the potential (possible when the necessary conditions exist) for committing (to do something illegal or something that is considered wrong) similar offences (an illegal act; a crime) or is capable of reform. The release of life convicts, who are generally expected to spend the entirety of their lives in prison, unless remission is granted after a prison term that should not be less than 14 years, ought to be individually considered (an opinion or decision that someone has reached after a lot of thought) and not part of any omnibus (of, relating to, or providing for many things at once)  gesture (an action that expresses your feelings or intentions, although it might have little practical effect) without regard to the impact of their freedom on the victims, survivors and society. Any rational (based on clear thought and reason) remission policy should encompass humanitarian (involved in or connected with improving people’s lives and reducing suffering) considerations and the convicts’ scope for reform (to make an improvement, especially by changing a person’s behaviour or the structure of something) without violating the rule of law or societal interests. In this case, none of the conditions for remission was met.

Unlock the power of words, one step further! Download the Lists of Word-Meanings of Previous Months here.