Context-

The recent judgment by the Supreme Court, declaring the premature release of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case as illegal, has not only rekindled hope but has also demonstrated a commitment to justice and the constitutional promise. This landmark decision brings to light the heinous crimes committed during the 2002 Gujarat riots, where Bilkis Bano, a victim of gang rape, lost 14 family members, including her three-year-old daughter.

Background of the Bilkis Bano Case:

Bilkis Bano's life took a tragic turn during the 2002 Gujarat riots when she, along with her family, faced organized violence. She endured brutalization, and 14 of her family members, including her young daughter, lost their lives. Despite the trauma, Bilkis Bano displayed remarkable resilience by engaging in a prolonged legal battle. Eventually, the accused were convicted, receiving life imprisonment for their heinous crimes. However, the saga did not end there.

Flawed Premature Release Order:

In a shocking turn of events, the Gujarat government decided to release the convicted individuals prematurely, citing factors such as their good conduct in jail, age, and the duration of their imprisonment. This decision disregarded the dissenting voices from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Special CBI judge. The CBI argued against leniency, emphasizing the gravity and heinous nature of the offense. The Special Judge highlighted the crime's motivation, stating that it was committed solely based on the victim's community affiliation.

The government's decision to release the convicts on August 15, 2022, despite these objections, raised concerns about the administration of justice. It became apparent that, even during their supposed incarceration, the convicts had spent over a thousand days out of jail on parole. This flawed release order triggered public outrage and further deepened the wounds of Bilkis Bano, who had already endured unimaginable suffering.

Adding insult to injury, a former Gujarat minister and a six-time MLA made insensitive remarks, suggesting that the accused, being Brahmins, possessed good sanskaras (values). He insinuated that the release might have been influenced by ill intentions to target and punish them. This blatant display of insensitivity and divisive rhetoric highlighted the need for accountability not only within the judiciary but also in political circles.

Public Outcry and Judicial Intervention:

The release of the convicts was met with public disdain as they were not only set free but also received a hero's welcome. Such a display of celebration for individuals convicted of such heinous crimes was not only vulgar but also reflected a significant lapse in the government's moral responsibility. This event underscored the necessity for the judiciary to intervene and rectify the miscarriage of justice.

Amid growing discontent and concerns about the prioritization of cases, the Supreme Court's intervention in the Bilkis Bano case became a beacon of hope. The court's judgment, deeming the premature release as illegal and ordering the immediate deprivation of the convicts' liberty, marked a crucial moment in restoring public confidence in the judiciary. The decision not only emphasized the "rule of law" but also echoed the sentiment that justice delayed is not justice denied.

The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, not only exposed the fraud committed by one petitioner in securing a favorable order but also condemned the complicity of the Gujarat government. The court declared the earlier decision naming Gujarat as the appropriate government for remission as illegal.

Remission: An Overview

Before delving into the complexities surrounding remission, it is crucial to understand the concept itself. Prison being a State subject, each state's prison rules outline specific reformative and rehabilitative activities for prisoners to earn remission in the form of days. This earned remission is then deducted from the court-imposed sentence. The underlying philosophy is that prisons should be rehabilitative spaces rather than mere instruments for retributive punishment.

For life convicts, a minimum of 14 years in prison is mandatory before eligibility for remission. However, applying for remission does not guarantee its approval. Each application undergoes individual consideration by a committee, guided by factors established by the Supreme Court. These factors include evaluating the nature of the offense, the likelihood of recurrence, the convict's potential for committing crimes, the purpose of continued confinement, and the socio-economic condition of the convict's family. The subjectivity of these factors makes the decision-making process crucial.

Despite the individualized nature of remission inquiries, there exists a lack of transparency regarding how these committees are formed and the reasons guiding their decisions. This opacity renders remission susceptible to the exercise of arbitrary power, as exemplified in the Bilkis Bano case.

Addressing Discontent and Prioritizing Cases:

The Supreme Court's intervention in the Bilkis Bano case brings attention to the broader issue of case prioritization and the need for a fair and efficient judicial system. Questions are raised about the prolonged incarceration of individuals like Umar Khalid, who has been awaiting a bail hearing for over two years. The establishment of special benches for specific cases, as seen in the matter of G N Saibaba, prompts a call for similar measures in other cases where justice is being delayed.

The memory of Stan Swamy's tragic death in prison without receiving a bail hearing serves as a poignant reminder of the challenges faced by individuals within the legal system. It underscores the importance of an independent and fearless judiciary that upholds constitutional values. The Constitution envisages a system where no one feels left out or discriminated against, and it is crucial for the judiciary to consistently demonstrate this commitment.

The Supreme Court's judgment in the Bilkis Bano case plays a vital role in restoring confidence in the judiciary. By rectifying the premature release and emphasizing the gravity of the crimes committed, the court sends a powerful message about accountability and the importance of upholding the rule of law. This decision serves as a beacon of hope for those seeking justice and ensures that the judiciary remains a pillar of strength for the citizens it serves.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's recent judgment in the Bilkis Bano case is a pivotal moment in the pursuit of justice and the upholding of constitutional values. The case highlights the importance of judicial intervention in rectifying miscarriages of justice and holding authorities accountable for their actions. As the nation reflects on this landmark decision, it is essential for the judiciary to continue its role as a guardian of justice, ensuring that every citizen is treated fairly and that the principles of the Constitution are upheld without compromise.

Source- Indian Express