Bilkis Bano case: Lawyers explain how 1992 remission policy paved way for early release of 11 convicts
The Supreme Court's order directing the Gujarat government to consider the remission of the sentence as per the July 1992 remission policy paved the way for the premature release of 11 convicts in the 2002 Bilkis Bano case, lawyers said on Tuesday.
 )
FollowThe Supreme Court's order directing the Gujarat government to consider the remission of the sentence as per the July 1992 remission policy paved the way for the premature release of 11 convicts in the 2002 Bilkis Bano case, lawyers said on Tuesday.
According to the 2014 policy, a person convicted for both gang rape and murder cannot be released early, but the 1992 policy did not include this restriction, a lawyer noted.
The premature release of 11 individuals who had been given life sentences for the gang rape of Bilkis Bano and the murder of seven of her family members during the 2002 post-Godhra Gujarat riots has drawn criticism against the state's BJP government. The convicted men walked out of the Godhra sub-jail on Monday.
According to Godhra-based attorney Parimal Pathak, who represented some of the convicts, one of them, Radheshyam Shah, had applied to the Supreme Court for a directive to the Gujarat government to consider his application for early release in accordance with the government resolution or order dated July 9, 1992. This facilitated their release, he said.
Their release would not have been conceivable, according to advocate Mihir Joshi, had the government been requested to evaluate their requests in accordance with the present remission policy.
"The Supreme Court said that the policy at the time of conviction (2008) should be taken into account. Also, the apex court relied on an earlier judgement saying that the policy of the state where the crime was committed should be applied. These are the two things that have been taken into consideration," Joshi said.
While the crime, in this case, took place in Gujarat, the trial had been transferred to Maharashtra. "Had the government applied today's policy, they would not have been released," advocate Joshi added.
The state government's order of July 8, 1992, did not mention any classification of crime while deciding on remission pleas.
According to advocate Pathak, a person serving a life sentence must have served 14 years in prison to be eligible for remission. He also noted that the opinions of the Inspector General of Prisons (IGP), the District Magistrate, the Jail Superintendent, and an advisory board committee are also considered.
"Relying on its earlier judgment, the Supreme Court said in its order dated May 13, 2022, that the policy which was existing on the date of conviction should be taken into account," said advocate Joshi. Hence the 1992 policy will apply here, not the latest one formulated in 2014, he said.
Also read: We are surprised, says Bilkis Bano's husband after 11 convicts get released
Advocate P S Champaneri said the current policy bars the release of a convict who has committed both gang rape and murder. "It is the usual policy of the government to exercise the power of remission on August 15, January 26, and October 2, the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi....As per the existing policy, a convict who has committed both gang rape and murder cannot be released," he added.
In its judgment dated May 13, 2022, the SC bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath had said that in this case, after the conclusion of the trial and passing of judgment, all further proceedings have to be considered "in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State of Gujarat where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred and concluded for exceptional reasons under the orders of this court."
The apex court then directed the respondents (state government) to consider the application of the petitioner for premature release "in terms of its policy dated July 9, 1992."
A special CBI court in Mumbai had, on January 21, 2008, sentenced the eleven accused to life imprisonment. In its 2018 order upholding the conviction of the accused persons, the Bombay High Court also set aside the acquittal of seven others.
(With inputs from PTI)
subscribe to Asianet Newsable WhatsApp channel by clicking here.For more reliable and latest news
subscribe to Asianet Newsable Telegram channel by clicking here.
