SC Sets Aside Remission Of 11 Convicts In Bilkis Bano Case
Background of the Bilkis Bano Case
The Bilkis Bano case relates to a horrific crime committed during the 2002 Gujarat riots.
Bilkis Bano, a victim, was gang-raped, and several members of her family were murdered.
After a long trial, 11 convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Gujarat government granted remission (early release) to these convicts, which became highly controversial.
Supreme Court’s Intervention
The Supreme Court intervened and set aside the remission granted to these 11 convicts.
Reasoning of the Supreme Court
Seriousness of the Offense
The Court emphasized the grave nature of the crime: gang rape during communal riots, which caused widespread outrage and trauma.
Such offenses shock the conscience of society and demand stringent punishment.
Victim’s Rights and Interests
The Court considered the rights of the victim and the need for justice and closure.
Granting remission undermines the victim’s dignity and the community’s faith in the justice system.
Principles of Remission
Remission is not a matter of right but a concession that must be exercised judiciously.
The gravity of the offense, impact on the victim, and societal interests must guide remission decisions.
Precedent and Judicial Oversight
The Court asserted that remission should not be granted in a manner that sends a wrong message about accountability.
It reiterated that judicial oversight is necessary to prevent misuse of remission powers in serious crimes.
Legal Principles Involved
Remission is Executive Concession: The power to remit sentences lies with the executive but is subject to judicial review in cases of abuse or miscarriage of justice.
Balance Between Mercy and Justice: Courts balance humanitarian grounds with the nature of the offense, victim’s rights, and public interest.
No Automatic Right to Remission: Remission must be consistent with the principles of justice and fairness, especially in heinous crimes.
Relevant Case Laws
1. Kehar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 653
The Supreme Court held that remission is an executive act and can be judicially reviewed if exercised arbitrarily or mala fide.
2. Sher Singh & Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 465
The Court observed that remission should not undermine the deterrent effect of punishment in serious crimes.
3. Swati v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 783
The Supreme Court emphasized the victim’s dignity and interest in cases of sexual offenses while considering remission.
4. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535
The Court held that the power of remission must be exercised judiciously, considering social justice and public interest.
Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the remission granted to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case due to the serious nature of the crimes, the impact on the victim, and public interest.
It reaffirmed that remission is not a right but a concession subject to judicial scrutiny.
Courts must ensure that remission does not dilute justice or send a message of impunity in grave offenses.
The decision underscores the importance of victim dignity and societal faith in the criminal justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments