The Supreme Court of India, in a recent hearing, delved into the matter of whether certain convicts receive preferential treatment in terms of remission. The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, raised concerns about potential disparities in the treatment of convicts. Justice Nagarathna posed the question,
“Are some convicts being treated differently? Are some convicts more privileged than others?”
This discussion emerged during the court’s examination of a series of petitions challenging the Gujarat government’s decision to grant remission to 11 convicts. These individuals were found guilty of gang-raping Bilkis Bano and murdering her family members amidst the 2002 Gujarat riots. Following a May 2022 judgment from the apex court, which was based on a plea by one of the convicts named Radhyesham, the Gujarat government granted remission to these convicts. Notably, their release came just before the state’s assembly elections.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing the convicts, was interrupted by Justice Nagarathna when he began to explain the stance on remission, leading to a brief exchange between the two. Luthra’s primary argument was that the severity of a crime shouldn’t be the sole factor in denying remission benefits to convicts. The court, in response, emphasized the need to determine the legality of the remission granted in this specific case.
Luthra further argued that the court’s role isn’t to review the nature of the crime or evidence when considering remission. Instead, the focus should be on the legal aspects of the remission process. He also raised questions about the executive’s power in deciding on remission and whether these individuals should continue to be deprived of their liberty.
This case highlights the complexities surrounding the remission of convicts and the potential implications of preferential treatment. It underscores the need for a transparent and consistent approach to ensure justice and fairness in the legal system.
