Supreme Court Questions Fundamental Nature of Remission Rights in Bilkis Bano Case: A Detailed Look at the Legal Debate
The Supreme Court of India has raised questions about the nature of a convict’s right to seek remission of their sentence, specifically whether it falls under any of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The query came during the hearing of a batch of pleas challenging the premature release of 11 men convicted in the 2002 Bilkis Bano case. The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, concluded the hearing of the arguments presented by the convicts.
Senior counsel Chitambaresh argued,
“An order granting remission can only be challenged under Article 226, and not under Article 32.”
He further stated that judicial review of an order granting remission is only permissible under Article 226. In response, Justice Nagarathna pointed out,
“One of the convicts filed an Article 32 petition. Do not be ignorant of that.”
Justice Nagarathna also expressed reservations over Chitambaresh’s argument, stating,
“We do not know if that is the law.”
She further elaborated on the scope of Article 226, saying,
“The power under Article 226 is wider than under Article 32. It covers not only violations of fundamental rights but violations of any other legal rights.”
The bench also questioned the selective application of remission policies across the country. Justice Nagarathna asked,
“How far is this law being applied to inmates in jail? Why are our jails overcrowded? Particularly with undertrials? Why is the policy of remission being applied selectively?”
The case has garnered significant attention, especially given the nature of the crimes committed, which included multiple murders and violent sexual assaults. Advocate Shobha Gupta, representing Bilkis Bano, argued that the punishment should be proportional to the nature and seriousness of the crime. She questioned,
“Are these people – the perpetrators who have been found guilty of committing these crimes – deserving of the leniency shown to them?”
The court has adjourned the proceedings until October 4, when the petitioners are expected to present their counterarguments.
Case Counsel:
- For the Petitioners: Advocate Shobha Gupta, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, and others
- For the Respondents: Senior counsel Chitambaresh, Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju, and others
- Bench: Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India