Bilkis Bano Case | Gujarat Govt Says Convicts Deserve Chance of Reformation; Supreme Court Asks, ‘Why Is Remission Policy Being Selectively Applied?’
Live LawThe Supreme Court questioned why the policy for premature release was being applied selectively, during Thursday’s hearing in the challenge against the remission granted to Bilkis Bano’s rapists. There is only one life…hopefully.” ASG Raju explained, “My submission is that the court could have said that the second sentence would continue after remission in the first. The issue is whether the State has exercised its discretion correctly.” Gujarat govt has complied with all requirements under law when granting remission: ASG Raju The State, Raju told the bench, was ‘duty bound’ to follow the remission policy applicable in 1992 across the State of Gujarat, due to the operation of the specific mandamus issued by the Supreme Court in Radheshyam Shah, in which a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath held that the remission application had to be decided by the Gujarat government in terms of that policy. Every three years judges are transferred.” On the dual function that the state government claimed the Godhra district judge to have discharged – both in terms of the statutory requirement under the Code, and as a member of the jail advisory committee, Justice Nagarathna said, “The requirement under Section 432 was different.” ASG Raju argued that the word ‘may’ in the section ought to be read in a manner that allowed judges with knowledge of ‘ground reality’ to deliver their opinion, insisting that it was the Gujarat judge, and not the one at Maharashtra who had delivered a negative opinion, was more competent in making a correct assessment. The bench also observed that the case was transferred to Maharashtra due to ‘exceptional circumstances’, only for the limited purpose of the trial, allowing the Gujarat government to consider the convicts’ applications for remission.