Bilkis Bano Case| Does Non-Deposit Of Fines By Convicts Have Bearing On Remission? Supreme Court Asks

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked whether the non-payment of the fine imposed as a part of the sentence would have an effect on the remission of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case. This question was posed to Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, when he informed the bench that recently, the full amount owed by the convict he is representing, has been paid to a sessions court in Mumbai.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 governmentLuthra, appearing for convict Ramesh Chandana, informed the court today that not only had his client moved an application before the Supreme Court seeking permission to deposit the unpaid fine imposed on him as a part of his sentence, but had also recently paid the fine to the convicting court in Mumbai.Advocates Shobha Gupta and Vrinda Grover, for Bilkis and PIL petitioners respectively, had both pointed out the non-payment of the fines by the life convicts, contending that their remission was illegal inasmuch as they had not served the default sentence. Grover had also argued that the wilful refusal to pay fines, even when the Bombay High Court directed for the money to be paid as compensation to the victim, reflected the convicts’ lack of remorse.Justice Nagarathna observed, “You have asked for permission, and now without permission, you have deposited the fine…”Luthra replied, “We had filed an application in this court seeking liberty to deposit the fine because of an initial apprehension that the sessions court may not accept the fine. My client went running to the court to deposit the fine without waiting to hear from us and the registry accepted it in the normal course. This is not meant to overreach the Supreme Court.”“Does non-deposit of fine have a bearing on remission? Did you apprehend this?” Justice Nagarathna asked the senior counsel.Luthra unequivocally contended that the non-payment of fine would have no legal consequences since any default sentence would be subsumed within a life sentence.“Non-deposit of the fine has no bearing on remission. But, since the issue was raised, we have deposited the fine to reduce the contours of that controversy. So, that contention would not stand in any case, because the fine stands deposited. In any event, their argument that the convicts would have to undergo default sentences for non-payment of fines is legally unsustainable because the default sentence would be subsumed within their life sentence. But, without prejudice to this legal argument, now that the fine has been paid, this issue does not remain.”“But at the time when remission was granted to the convicts, the fine was not paid,” Justice Bhuyan pointed out.“I bow down,” Luthra conceded, before adding, “But that has no legal consequence.”“If you did not apprehend that non-deposition of fine would have a bearing on the merits of the case, then there was no need to deposit the fine at this stage,” Justice Nagarathna countered.There was absolutely no need, Luthra insisted. Nevertheless, he advised his client to make the payment, the senior counsel told the bench. On a lighter note, he added, “Perhaps it was poor advice, but I’m known to give bad advice at times. I will leave it at that.”“But it is an act sub judice,” Justice Nagarathna pressed on.“Yes, undoubtedly,” Luthra agreed.Convicting court did not order life sentence without remission or death sentence and therefore envisioned a possibility of remission: Sidharth LuthraSenior Advocate Sidharth Luthra pointed to the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case not being sentenced to die, or handed fixed-term sentences by the trial court or the Bombay High Court to argue that the possibility of reformation could not be precluded. During Thursday’s hearing, he told the Supreme Court – “There are three categories of sentences – life sentence, life sentence without remission for a fixed period, and death sentence. The majority of the body of law suggests that reformation is the ultimate aim of the criminal justice administration. Otherwise, in a murder case, where the choice is between a life sentence and death penalty, the latter would be handed out more rampantly. But, through judicial diktat, it has been made clear that it must first answer to the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine. That is a case, when the court believes there’s no possibility of reformation, subject to a reference to higher courts. But, these are cases where the high court thought fit to impose a life sentence, and not the death sentence. Neither were fixed-term sentences excluding remission handed out. Therefore, these are not beyond the remit...

Bilkis Bano Case| Does Non-Deposit Of Fines By Convicts Have Bearing On Remission? Supreme Court Asks

Awstika Das

Tags