From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Remission of Sentences
Mains level: Bilkis Bano Verdict
Introduction
- Supreme Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down the remission granted to 11 men convicted in the 2002 Bilkis Bano Gangrape Case.
- Gujarat Government’s Action Deemed Illegal: The court declared the Gujarat government’s decision to release the convicts as illegal, citing jurisdictional issues.
Remission of Sentences: Constitutional Analysis
| Details | |
| What is Remission? | Complete ending of a sentence at a reduced point;
Nature of the sentence remains unchanged, but the duration is reduced; Conditional release; breach of conditions leads to cancellation. |
| Constitutional Provisions | Article 72: President’s pardoning powers
Article 161: Governor’s pardoning powers President’s pardoning power >>> Governor’s |
| Statutory Power of Remission | Provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Sections 432 and 433 allow suspension, remission, or commutation of sentences |
| Background of Remission System | Defined under the Prison Act, 1894;
Observed in Kehar Singh vs. Union of India (1989) and State of Haryana vs. Mahender Singh (2007) cases |
| Latest MHA Guidelines | Special Remission Guidelines to commemorate 75th year of Independence as part of the Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav celebrations. |
| Eligibility for Special Remission | Women and transgender convicts aged 50+
Male convicts aged 60+, having completed 50% of their sentence Physically challenged convicts with 70% + disability, having completed 50% of their sentence Terminally ill convicts who have completed 66% of their sentence Poor prisoners detained due to non-payment of fines Young offenders aged 18-21 with no other criminal involvement, having completed 50% of their sentence |
| Exclusions from the Scheme | Convicts with death sentences or life imprisonment;
Convicts involved in terrorist activities or convicted under specific acts like TADA, POTA, UAPA, etc. Convicts of offences like dowry death, counterfeiting, rape, human trafficking, POCSO Act violations, etc. |
Core Issue before the Court
- Question of Authority: The central issue was whether the Gujarat government had the authority to issue remission orders for the convicts.
- Jurisdictional Clarification: The crime occurred in Gujarat, but the trial was held in Mumbai. The Supreme Court clarified that the appropriate government for remission decisions is where the sentencing occurred, not where the crime was committed.
Understanding Remission of Sentences
- Constitutional and Legal Provisions: Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution and Section 432 of the CrPC empower the President, Governors, and state governments to remit sentences.
- Restrictions Under Section 433A of the CrPC: This section imposes limitations on remission for life imprisonment cases, requiring a minimum of 14 years of imprisonment.
Grounds for Remission
- Sentence Review Board’s Role: States have a Sentence Review Board to exercise powers under Section 432 of the CrPC.
- Supreme Court Guidelines: The court mandates due process in remission decisions, considering factors like the crime’s seriousness, co-accused status, and jail conduct.
- Criteria Established in ‘Laxman Naskar v. Union of India’ (2000): The Supreme Court outlined five specific grounds for considering remission:
(a) Whether the offence is an individual act of crime that does not affect society.
(b) The likelihood of the crime being repeated in the future.
(c) Whether the convict has lost the potentiality to commit a crime.
(d) The purpose served by keeping the convict in prison.
(e) Socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family.
The Bilkis Bano Case Specifics
- Convict’s Appeal for Remission: A convict appealed to the Supreme Court for premature release under Gujarat’s 1992 remission policy.
- Supreme Court’s Initial Directive: The court initially directed the Gujarat government to consider Shah’s application as per the 1992 policy.
Gujarat’s Remission Policy and Its Implications
- 1992 Policy vs. 2014 Policy: The 1992 policy, under which remission was sought, was invalidated by the Supreme Court in 2012.
- Gujarat Government’s Argument: The state argued that the 1992 policy was applicable as the conviction occurred in 2008, before the 2014 policy with stricter guidelines was formulated.
Aftermath of the Remission Grant
- Public Outrage: The release of the convicts sparked widespread outrage and was perceived as a miscarriage of justice.
- Bilkis Bano’s Appeal: Bilkis Bano challenged the remission in the Supreme Court, highlighting the heinous nature of the crime and its impact on society.
Conclusion
- Restoration of Legal Integrity: The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the remission restores faith in the legal system’s commitment to justice.
- Reaffirmation of Jurisdictional Authority: The ruling clarifies the jurisdictional authority in remission cases, reinforcing the importance of due process and legal consistency.
- Broader Implications: This judgment sets a precedent for future remission cases, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of the crime’s nature and societal impact in such decisions.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
