Bilkis Bano case

Syllabus: GS-II
Subject: Indian Polity and Constitution
Topic: Functions and Responsibilities of the Union and
the States – Remission Powers.
Why in news?
The Supreme Court has struck down the
remission granted by the State of Gujarat to 11
men convicted in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case
of 2002
In its judgment on Monday, a Bench of Justices
B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the court
was defrauded into delivering its decision on
May 13, 2022.
Background of the case:
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE JUDGEMENT:
The court has ruled that the Gujarat government’s decision
to remit their sentences and set them free was illegal.
The court said Gujarat did not have the jurisdiction to grant
remission to the convicts as it was not the “appropriate
government” under Section 432(7)(b) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
As per the Supreme court, the appropriate government to
decide remission is the state within whose jurisdiction the
accused were sentenced — and not the state within whose
territorial limits the offense was committed or the accused
were imprisoned.
Though the crime had been committed in Gujarat’s Dahod
district, the trial took place in Mumbai, where a special court
convicted and sentenced the accused in 2008
Hence, the state of Maharashtra shall be the appropriate
government to grant remission
 WHAT IS THE LAW ON REMISSION OF SENTENCES?

1.Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution:

The President and Governors of states can
pardon a convict, and can also suspend,
remit, or commute a sentence passed by the
courts.
Not a discretionary power, but is based on
the recommendation of the Council of
Ministers.
2.Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
state governments to have the power to remit sentences, as
Prisons is a state subject under Seventh Schedule.
States set up a Sentence Review Board to exercise the powers
under Section 432 of the CrPC.
The Supreme Court held that states cannot exercise the power of
remission arbitrarily, and must follow due process.
Convicts serving life sentences are entitled to seek remission only
after serving a minimum of 14 years.
3.Grounds for remission:
In ‘Laxman Naskar v. Union of India’ (2000) the SC laid down five
grounds on which remission is considered:
(a) Whether the offence is an individual act of crime that does not
affect the society;
(b) Whether there is a chance of the crime being repeated in future;
(c) Whether the convict has lost the potentiality to commit crime;
(d) Whether any purpose is being served in keeping the convict in
prison; and
(e) Socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family
What happens now?
The court directed the released convicts to report back to the jail
authorities within two weeks.
The convicts can approach the Maharashtra government for
remission in the future, as it is declared as the appropriate
government.
Whether remission is granted will, depend on various aspects,
including the remission policy of the state of Maharashtra.
As per 2008 Government Resolution which is applicable to the
convicts, a minimum imprisonment of 28 years would have to be
undergone before they can apply for remission.
CONCLUSION:

The convict’s right to reform cannot annul the victim’s right to

justice. By quashing the remission of the convicts and highlighting
the lack of jurisdiction by the Gujarat government, the court has
reaffirmed the importance of due process and victim sensitivity in
such sensitive cases.
Thank You