Bilkis Bano Case | Supreme Court Refers To 'Privilege' Of Convicts In Getting Parole For Hundreds Of Days Unlike Many Other Convicts

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned if the non-payment of fines by the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case would be an important consideration when examining their conduct in jail. The court also observed that in this case, the convicts had the privilege of getting parole for many days, unlike several other convicts. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a clutch of pleas against the decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to the 11 convicts who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders and violent sexual assault during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat. Last year, on Independence Day, the convicts were allowed to walk free after their application for remission of the sentence was approved by the Gujarat government. Advocates Shobha Gupta and Vrinda Grover had previously raised concerns about the convicts’ failure to pay their fines, arguing that their release on remission was unlawful because they had not served their default sentences. Grover specifically contended that their deliberate refusal to pay the fines, even after the Bombay High Court ordered the money to be compensated to the victim, demonstrated their lack of remorse. On the other hand, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra argued that no legal consequences would flow from the non-payment of the fines, since any consequent default sentence would be subsumed within the life terms handed down to the convicts. At the same time, on the last occasion, he informed the court that the convicts had recently submitted the outstanding amounts to the convicting court in Mumbai. On behalf of the Gujarat government as well as the private respondents, it was strongly argued that the remission was legal inasmuch as the convicts were prematurely released only after taking into consideration the requisite factors in terms of the relevant policy, which included their conduct in jail. The move was also justified by invoking the theory of reformation and pointing to the trial court sentencing the convicts to life imprisonment simpliciter, instead of imposing a fixed-term sentence or the death penalty. During today’s hearing, Luthra again highlighted the trial court’s judicial determination in these cases, deeming life imprisonment sentences, which were the lowest of the three categories, adequate. The hope for reformation remains and it cannot be precluded only on the sole basis of the heinousness of the crime, the senior counsel insisted. He also reiterated that non-payment of the fines would have no legal consequences on the remission orders under challenge – “Non-payment of fines is not a relevant consideration here. The other side argued that non-payment of fines was fatal. My submission that it’s not fatal to the remission orders because it is a reduction of the substantive sentence. The sentence in default of fine is not the subject matter of remission and it stands on a different footing. There’s no occasion to seek or get remission with respect to the default sentence. Therefore, the fact that the amount was not paid, or that it was paid while this matter is sub judice, will have no impact on the merits or the legality of the remission orders. ” Justice Bhuyan stopped the senior counsel at this juncture, to ask – “Will it not come within the meaning of the convicts’ conduct? This non-payment of penalty or fine? Will this not be relevant consideration?” Along the same lines, last month, Justice Bhuyan had asked whether any of the convicts had expressed repentance or remorse. In response, Bilkis’ lawyer had pointed out, “They have not even bothered to pay the fines that they were asked to.” “There has to be an ability to make the payment,” Luthra countered to the question that the judge posed today, “In 15 years of custody, most family bonds are gone. I had the opportunity to visit a jail yesterday. It’s a completely cut off life. You are away, you are reduced to labour, and you have no sources…” Justice Nagarathna interjected - “In this case, the convicts had the privilege of coming out for several hundreds of days. There are some convicts who are privileged, no? As opposed to others. That is the point we want to make.” Recently, another bench of the Supreme Court, while directing a prisoner to be released on parole, pulled up the Gujarat government for a one-year delay in deciding a convict’s application for premature release, in contravention to an earlier order of the court. Luthra attempted, “The point I seek to clarify is every convict…” “…is not the same,” Justice Nagarathna finished the sentence, smiling. “Your Ladyship has taken the words right out of my mouth,” Luthra promptly riposted, “Every convict is not the same and therefore, the individual circumstances of every convict must be looked at through the lens of reformation. We cannot take the same brush to every one of them. I bow before...

Bilkis Bano Case | Supreme Court Refers To 'Privilege' Of Convicts In Getting Parole For Hundreds Of Days Unlike Many Other Convicts

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

Bilkis Bano Case | Supreme Court Refers To 'Privilege' Of Convicts In Getting Parole For Hundreds Of Days Unlike Many Other Convicts

Awstika Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers