The Supreme Court in a landmark verdict quashed the order of en masse remission granted by the State of Gujarat to eleven men sentenced to life imprisonment for the gang rape of Bilkis Bano and murder of her family including her three-year-old child. This verdict is not only a slap on the Gujarat government but to everyone who had celebrated the early release of the convicts on the occasion of country’s 75th Independence Day on August 15, 2022.
The men were welcomed with sweets and garlands by their relatives. The accused were convicted in 2008 and were sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the Gujarat government had ordered the convicts to be freed on the basis of an obsolete 1992 remission policy which drew widespread condemnation. Around 4 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court against the Gujarat government’s decision including Bilkis Bano herself. During the hearing, the Apex Court stated that although there is provision in law to reduce one’s punishment, the reason was unclear in this case.
In fact, ‘good behaviour’ in prison is not a reason applicable enough when it comes to capital punishment. The Gujarat government before taking the decision was expected to discuss it with neighbouring Maharashtra as the case was being heard in Mumbai court. The top court has objected to this move from the Gujarat government. The court has now ordered the convicts to surrender to the jail authorities within two weeks.
This has exposed the Gujarat government’s decision which was taken on the backdrop of Assembly elections in December 2022. Bano was one of the victims of gruesome Hindu-Muslim riots which occurred in 2002 in Gujarat. She was gangraped by around 20 men who went on to kill 16 of her relatives including her three-year-old daughter. The tragic bloodbath happened on March 3, 2002 when Bano was barely 21-year old. The mob left her thinking she was dead. She realised the unfortunate gravity of the situation after gaining consciousness 3-4 hours later. Her husband too survived who joined her in her fight for justice. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was then Chief Minister of Gujarat when the riots took place and was criticised for not doing enough to prevent the carnage. The first arrest in the case was made in 2004. It is wrong on many levels for any government to contemplate reducing punishment of convicts who have committed such a heinous crime. To prematurely release such convicts not only hurts Bilkis Bano, but also rubs salt on the wounds of innumerable women who are awaiting justice.
Thankfully, the court was considerate towards the victim and stated that misleading facts were presented instead of crucial facts while recommending reduction of the punishment. This makes one wonder what should be the criteria to reduce punishment of those who are convicted in infernal crimes. It is important to note that Bilkis Bano’s trial case was transferred from Gujarat to Mumbai in order to prevent any potential political pressure which may affect the judgement. But the accused were in a Gujarat jail so the rules and laws of the jail came under the jurisdiction of the respective state government. Using these rights, the Gujarat government practiced remission. A similar decision was taken by then CM Devendra Fadnavis-led Maharashtra government in the case of actor Sanjay Dutt who was arrested in connection with a series of serial bombings which took place in 1993 at Bombay. Dutt had served 18 months of his sentence before being back in jail in 2013 to complete the remainder of his 42 months. However, he was released in February 2016 which was 8 months short of his original sentence. Yerawada Central Jail authorities cited Dutt’s good behaviour in prison as the reason for his early release. The Bombay High Court had slammed the Fadnavis government asking for explanation over Dutt’s early release to which the government had cited the above reason. Therefore, it is important to draft criteria regarding the definition of ‘good behaviour’ which should be available in the public domain. How will the government know if a prisoner is behaving well in prison? From the prison officer’s report that is. So, it is obvious that the prison officer may be under political pressure which can effectively cloud his judgement. Hence, the remission policies of each state should be drafted and made available for the public to access them. Otherwise, each state government may misuse their power to release dangerous criminals. May the Apex Court’s directive to Gujarat government offer some much required wisdom to other state governments.
