Bilkis Bano Case: Supreme Court Deliberates on Preferential Treatment of Convicts
The Supreme Court, led by Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, is critically examining the Gujarat government’s decision to grant remission to 11 convicts from the Bilkis Bano case. These individuals had been sentenced to life imprisonment due to their involvement in the violent sexual assault and multiple murders during the 2002 Gujarat riots.
Background:
In 2002, Bilkis Bano, then 21 and five months pregnant, faced a brutal gang-rape in Gujarat’s Dahod district amidst the post-Godhra communal riots. Tragically, seven of her family members, including her three-year-old daughter, were also killed. The Mumbai sessions court convicted the accused in 2008, and the Bombay High Court upheld these life sentences in 2017. Later, the Supreme Court directed the Gujarat government to award Bano with Rs 50 lakhs in compensation, along with a government job and a house.
Controversy Surrounding Remission:
The release of the convicts by the Gujarat government in 2022, following their remission applications, ignited widespread public outrage, leading to several petitions against the remission.
Justice Nagarathna voiced her concerns, asking,
“Are some convicts being treated differently? Are some convicts more privileged than others?”
The court also pointed out that certain convicts
“had the privilege of coming out for several hundreds of days”
unlike many others.
Representing the convicts, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra responded,
“Every convict… is not the same?” to which Justice Nagarathna retorted, “My lady took the words out of my mouth.”
Luthra emphasized that the convicts shouldn’t be denied remission solely based on the heinous nature of their crimes. Addressing the non-payment of fines, a concern raised by Bilkis Bano’s lawyer, Luthra clarified,
“Non-payment of fines is not a relevant consideration here… The sentence in default of fine is not the subject matter of remission.”
Advocates Shobha Gupta and Vrinda Grover highlighted the convicts’ failure to pay their fines, suggesting their release was unlawful. They argued that the refusal to pay, even after a Bombay High Court order, indicated a lack of remorse.
Reformation vs. Retribution:
The discussion also ventured into the broader philosophical realm of reformation versus retribution. Luthra underscored the trial court’s decision to impose life imprisonment sentences, suggesting a possibility for reformation. He argued,
“We cannot take the same brush to every one of them.”
Defending its decision, the Gujarat government invoked the reformative theory of punishment, asserting that even those convicted of heinous crimes deserve an opportunity for reformation and societal reintegration.
Justice Nagarathna posed a significant query,
“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?”
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s continued hearings on this case are eagerly anticipated, given the profound implications it has on the broader discourse surrounding justice, reformation, and convict rights.
