Bilkis Bano case| Convicts questioned Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction regarding power of Remission, raising issues Concerning Art. 32 and 226

Last Updated on September 21, 2023 by News Desk

The Indian Supreme Court is immersed in a difficult discussion over jurisdiction and the scope of constitutional power in the case of the prisoners connected to the horrifying Bilkis Bano event of 2002, which has riveted the attention of the whole country. The case explores the rights of convicts who have completed a large portion of their sentences as well as the ramifications of their early release on society. It also raises problems concerning the constitutional provisions of Article 226 vs. Article 32.

The essential issue in this legal tangle is whether a remission decision may be challenged in the Supreme Court or if it is just the province of high courts. Senior Attorney V Chitambaresh argued on behalf of the released inmates that Article 226 of the Constitution, which gives high courts the power to issue writs, offers a wider window of opportunity for challenging remission judgements than Article 32. Only Article 226, he said, allows for judicial review of remission orders.

Justice BV Nagarathna brought up an important issue by pointing out that one of the prisoners had previously filed a plea under Article 32 asking for remission, which was a critical point. This reality refutes Chitambaresh’s claim that such circumstances exclude the use of Article 32.

The argument goes on to address whether the ability to request remission is a fundamental right and, if so, whether the court has the power to cancel remission orders after they have been issued. The difficult balance between the rights of the victims and those of the criminals who have served the majority of their sentences is highlighted by this important topic.

The case also calls into question the type of punishment and chances for rehabilitation for those found guilty of horrific crimes. The Gujarat government’s justification, which is based on the reformative philosophy of punishment, contends that even people convicted of serious crimes should be given the opportunity to reintegrate into society.

In an unexpected turn of events, the Supreme Court emphasised the dignity of the legal profession by debating whether a criminal should be permitted to practise law. This investigation adds yet another level of intricacy to an already complex situation.

The panel also rejected the defence that it shouldn’t pass judgement on an earlier decision designating the Gujarat government as the appropriate body to handle requests for premature release. This ruling makes it possible for the remission orders to be subject to court review, which might have significant ramifications for the prisoners.

History of The Case

The case’s beginnings may be traced back to Radheshyam Shah, a criminal who was sentenced to 15 years in prison and asked the Gujarat High Court to commute his sentence. The Gujarat government made a decision about the remission application after the Gujarat High Court determined that the Maharashtra government had jurisdiction over the case. A number of petitions were filed against the Gujarat government’s decision after the subsequent release of the prisoners under the remission policy, including those from well-known individuals like Subhashini Ali, Rooplekha Verma, Revati Laul, and the National Federation of Indian Women. However, a writ petition challenging the premature release had earlier been rejected by the Supreme Court.

The sentence imposed by the trial court and the Bombay High Court was also questioned by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, who was representing one of the convicts. He specifically questioned whether the convicts’ failure to pay fines should be taken into account when assessing their behavior in prison.

The Bilkis Bano case serves as a sobering reminder of the difficulties and complexity the Indian judicial system must overcome as it seeks justice, forgiveness, and the defence of fundamental rights.

All eyes are on the Supreme Court's October 4 sessions as the legal conflict progresses. A decision that might reshape the parameters of judicial review, the rights of prisoners, and the delicate balance between justice and rehabilitation in a society still suffering from the aftereffects of a terrible period in its history is awaited by the whole country.

Case Title: Bikis Yakul Rasoob vs. Union of India & Ors.

Written by Srijan Raj @raaj_srijan