Bilkis Bano Case: Supreme Court Questions Selective Application of Remission Policy in Gujarat

Subject: Polity

Section: Judiciary

Context:

The Supreme Court raised concerns over the Gujarat government’s alleged selective application of its premature release policy for prisoners.
During the hearing, Justice B.V. Nagarathna directed probing questions at Additional Solicitor-General S.V. Raju, who was representing Gujarat.

Release of Convicts in Bilkis Bano Case

The Gujarat government released 11 convicts involved in the Bilkis Bano gang rape and murder case, citing its remission policy.
The release was prompted by Radheshyam Shah’s appeal, who had served 15 years and 4 months of his sentence.

Gujarat’s Remission Policy and Its Applicability

The 1992 remission policy allowed prisoners who had served a minimum of 14 years to apply for early release.
The policy empowered the state to consider the remaining sentence based on conduct, subject to verification.
The Supreme Court invalidated the 1992 policy in 2012
- The court ruled that remission under Section 432 of the CrPC requires obtaining the judge’s opinion and reasons from the convicting or confirming court, allowing only case-specific, not wholesale, decisions.
In response, Gujarat crafted a new policy in 2014, introducing exclusions for specific types of crimes.
Radheshyam Shah sought remission under the 1992 policy, which did not have post-2014 exclusions.

Legal Aspects of Remission and Release

Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution confer pardon and remission powers on the President and Governors, respectively.
Chapter XXXII of the CrPC (Sections 432 to 435) outlines the procedures for remission, suspension, and commutation of sentences.
Remission aims to address aspects not fully covered during court proceedings.
Convicts can be released with or without conditions based on remission.
Convicts serving life sentences become eligible for remission after completing 14 years of imprisonment.
Section 433A of the CrPC restricts the power of the President and Governors to commute death sentences to less than 14 years of life imprisonment.
The remission process involves consultation between the state and the court, followed by an executive decision.
The power of remission must be exercised fairly and without arbitrariness.
The Supreme Court, in ‘State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh and Others’ (2007), underscored that remission should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering relevant factors.
- Remission, a product of good behavior, should not be viewed as an act of compassion but as a legal duty.
- Remission contributes to reformation while respecting constitutional principles.

In the landmark case ‘Laxman Naskar v. Union of India’ (2000), the Supreme Court laid down five criteria for granting remission: