As we embark on understanding the complexities of the Bilkis Bano case, let’s prepare to examine the arbitrary and unjustified nature of the remission recently granted to the convicts. Nearly two decades ago, Bilkis Bano was a victim of one of the most heinous crimes during the Gujarat riots. She witnessed the brutal murder of her family members, including her three-year-old daughter, before being gang-raped while pregnant. Despite fighting for 17 years to get justice in a case that shook the nation, the trauma has been revisited with the premature release of the convicts. The following analysis seeks to explore how such arbitrary leniency defeats the purpose of punishment and rehabilitation, especially for crimes as grave as these. Understanding the flaws in the remission policy and its implementation is crucial to ensure that justice is truly served for victims of such violence.
The Bilkis Bano Rape Case: A Recap of the Horrific Events
In 2002, during the Gujarat riots in India, Bilkis Bano was gang-raped and several members of her family were killed by a mob. The case came to be known as the Bilkis Bano rape case and exemplified the arbitrary and unjust nature of the country’s legal system.
Bilkis Bano, a Muslim woman who was 5 months pregnant at the time, was attempting to flee the violence with 15 family members in a truck. They were stopped by a mob who raped Bilkis, murdered her 3-year-old daughter, and killed several other family members. Bilkis survived and was the sole eyewitness to identify the perpetrators.
In 2008, a special CBI court convicted 11 men of rape, murder, and unlawful assembly. They were sentenced to life in prison. However, in 2019, the Gujarat government allowed their early release under its remission policy after having served 14 years. The decision was arbitrary and unjustified given the heinous nature of the crimes.
The remission disregarded Bilkis’ safety and well-being. She continues to face threats from the accused and lives in hiding. The policy was misused to grant leniency to those who committed atrocious acts of violence. The case highlights systemic flaws in India’s legal system that fail to uphold principles of justice, equality and human rights.
Bilkis courageously pursued justice in a case that exposed the Gujarat government’s complicity in the riots. However, the remission of her rapists and killers serves as a reminder that more needs to be done to protect women and hold officials accountable to the law. The arbitrary use of leniency policies must be re-examined to prevent such grave miscarriages of justice. Justice for Bilkis Bano remains elusive, but her case shall not be forgotten.
What constitutes a remission under Indian Law?
Under Indian law, ‘remission’ refers to the reduction of a sentence without changing the nature of the sentence. It is granted by way of remitting either the whole or part of the sentence. Remission can be granted by the appropriate government under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appropriate government has the power to grant remission to any prisoner who has been sentenced to an imprisonment period exceeding 3 years.
Remission is usually granted based on factors like:
- Good conduct: If the prisoner has maintained good conduct during their imprisonment period. Good conduct refers to obedience of prison rules and discipline.
- Health grounds: If the prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness or physical/mental disability that cannot be properly addressed in prison.
- Meritorious service: If the prisoner has done exemplary work during their imprisonment like preventing a jailbreak.
- Special reasons: The appropriate government has discretionary power to grant remission for any special reasons they deem fit. However, such reasons have to be recorded in writing.
While the power to grant remission aims to reform and rehabilitate prisoners, it also has the potential for arbitrariness if not exercised judiciously. The Bilkis Bano case is a prime example of how remission was granted arbitrarily without following due process and consideration of the nature of the crime. The case highlights the need to re-examine the remission policy in India to prevent such miscarriages of justice.
Overall, remission should only be granted in deserving cases after careful consideration of the circumstances and gravity of the offense. It should not become an arbitrary exercise of discretionary power.
The Gujarat Government’s decision to grant Remission in the Bilkis Bano Case
The decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to the 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case has been met with widespread criticism. In 2022, the convicts who were sentenced to life imprisonment for gangrape and murder during the 2002 Gujarat riots were released under the state’s remission policy after serving 14 years in jail.
Granting remission in such a case sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the deterrent effect of the law. The remission policy is meant to be used judiciously for good conduct and should not be applicable to heinous crimes like gangrape and mass murder. The premature release of the convicts has denied justice to the victim, Bilkis Bano, and sent the wrong message to society.
The decision appears arbitrary and politically motivated. The state government did not consult the trial court or the Central government before granting remission, as required under the law. The court that convicted the accused was not heard. There are also allegations that one of the convicts had connections with the ruling political party, raising doubts about the objectivity of the decision.
The remission goes against the principles of natural justice and the ethos of a just society. It has been strongly condemned by civil society groups, lawyers, politicians and common citizens across the country. The travesty of justice in this case mirrors the prevailing mob culture and moral bankruptcy that pose a threat to the rule of law and the secular democratic foundations of the nation.
Why the Remission in the Bilkis Bano case was Arbitrary and Unjustified?
The remission granted in the Bilkis Bano case was arbitrary and unjustified for several reasons.
Firstly, the Gujarat government did not follow due process in granting remission to the convicts. According to established guidelines, remission can only be granted after consulting the court and investigating agency that tried the case. However, in this case, neither the CBI which investigated the case nor the court that convicted the accused were consulted. The decision to release the convicts was taken unilaterally by the Gujarat government, indicating the arbitrary nature of the decision.
Secondly, the convicts showed no remorse for their crimes and did not apply for remission. Remission is usually granted to prisoners who show good conduct and remorse during their imprisonment. However, in this case, none of the convicts applied for remission or showed any repentance for their heinous acts. Granting remission without any application or show of reform points to the unjustified nature of the decision.
Finally, the remission defeats the purpose of punishment and retribution in heinous crimes like rape. The court sentenced the convicts to life imprisonment to serve the twin goals of punishment and deterrence for such a gruesome act. By granting remission, the Gujarat government has undermined the objectives of punishment and allowed the perpetrators of a reprehensible crime to walk free without completing their full sentence. This further reinforces the arbitrary and unjustified nature of the remission.
The Precedents: How remission has been granted in similar cases?
The granting of remission to the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case is not an isolated incident. There are several precedents where remission has been granted to convicts of heinous crimes, highlighting the arbitrary nature of the policy.
In the case of Dara Singh, convicted for the Graham Staines murder case in 1999, the Supreme Court rejected the plea for remission in 2018, stating that the “brutal, diabolical, gruesome, horrific acts” of the crime made the convicts unsuitable for any leniency. However, the Orissa government granted remission to Dara Singh in 2019, just a year after the Supreme Court’s order.
In the Melavalavu massacre case, where six Dalits were hacked to death in 1996, the prime accused was released in 2008 after serving less than 10 years in prison. The premature release was justified on account of his “good conduct” in prison. In the case of the convicts in the 1995 Kambalapalli massacre, where eight persons were burnt alive, remission was granted in 2015 after they had served 20 years in prison. This was despite the fact that they had not shown any remorse for their crimes.
There are numerous other examples of arbitrary remission, highlighting a lack of set standards or guidelines. The remission policy appears to depend significantly on the whims and fancies of political leaders and bureaucrats in power. Their decisions seem to be made without considering the nature and magnitude of the crimes committed, and the impact on the victims and society.
The arbitrariness in granting remission severely compromises the deterrent effect and purpose of punishment. It signals that perpetrators of even the most violent crimes may escape full punishment due to discretionary policy measures. This undermines the principles of justice and the rule of law. Stricter guidelines and standards need to be put in place to correct this systemic flaw.
The Role of Religion and Politics in this Decision
The decision to grant remission to the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case was not free from the influences of religion and politics.
- Religion – The convicts belonged to a religious group that holds political power in the state. Their religious affiliation likely made the government more sympathetic to their plea for leniency. The government’s soft stance could be seen as an attempt of appeasement politics and consolidate its voter base.
- Vote Bank Politics – The decision also appears to have been motivated by vote bank politics. The government likely wanted to please certain groups to gain their support in upcoming elections. By granting remission to the convicts, the government probably aimed to win over groups that share the same religious ideology as the convicts.
- Lack of Consideration for the Victim – The arbitrary remission disregarded the suffering of the victim, Bilkis Bano, who was gang-raped and had seven members of her family killed during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The decision to release the convicts early shows a lack of sensitivity towards the trauma of the victim and gives the impression that the government is more concerned about the well-being of the perpetrators than the victim.
- Damage to Judiciary – The Gujarat government’s decision undermines the authority of the judiciary. The Supreme Court had upheld the life imprisonment of the convicts, yet the state government took the liberty to overturn the court’s verdict through arbitrary use of remission powers.
The role of religion and politics in this case highlights some worrying trends in the governance and administration of justice in India. The selective use of leniency powers to appease certain groups threatens the fair and impartial functioning of the justice system.
The failure of Rehabilitation: Why early release defeats the purpose of Punishment?
The early release of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case defeats the purpose of punishment and rehabilitation. By granting remission to the convicts, the state has failed in its duty to reform and rehabilitate them.
Remission is usually granted to prisoners for good behavior and conduct during their sentence. However, in this case, the convicts showed no remorse for their heinous crimes. They made no efforts towards reform and continued to maintain their innocence despite being found guilty by the courts. Granting them early release sends the wrong message that remorse and reform are not required for leniency.
Punishment serves the twin purposes of retribution and deterrence. The sentence awarded to the convicts was already relatively lenient given the gravity of their crimes. Prematurely releasing them further dilutes the deterrent effect of the punishment. It indicates that even the most depraved and cruel acts may be punished lightly, thus failing to deter such acts in the future.
Rehabilitation requires sincere efforts from the convicts to understand the wrongfulness of their actions and become functioning members of society. The convicts made no such efforts and remained unrepentant of their crimes. Releasing unreformed criminals puts society at risk of recidivism. They remain a threat and may continue to harm others.
The remission granted appears to be an arbitrary political decision not backed by any rationale or principle. It violates the purposes of punishment and rehabilitation and puts the victim and society at risk. The state has failed in its duty to reform hardened criminals, protect citizens and build a just society. The remission should be revoked to correct this failure, provide justice to the victim and deter such grave crimes.
The impact of leniency on rape survivors seeking justice
The arbitrary nature of the remission granted to the convicted rapists in the Bilkis Bano case sends a chilling message to survivors of sexual violence in India. When the state chooses to be lenient towards those who have committed such a heinous crime, it signals to victims that their suffering and trauma are not significant enough to warrant appropriate punishment.
The decision to release the convicts comes across as a careless, irresponsible move that undermines the courage shown by Bilkis Bano in relentlessly pursuing justice. After witnessing her family being massacred during the 2002 Gujarat riots, Bilkis Bano was gang-raped and left for dead. Despite immense pressure to stay silent, Bilkis Bano fought for over 14 years to bring the perpetrators to justice. However, the trauma and suffering that she endured seem to have been in vain, with the premature release of the convicts.
The remission also goes against the ethos of reformative justice. The convicts showed no remorse for their crimes and made no efforts towards rehabilitation. Their release sends the wrong message that remorse and reform are not required for leniency. Rape is a heinous act that causes lifelong trauma, and leniency should only be shown when there are clear signs that the convicts understand the nature of their crimes.
The state’s arbitrary remission undermines justice for rape survivors and fails to protect women’s rights across India. The impact of this failure will be felt widely by rape survivors seeking justice and fighting similar legal battles across India. Their path has been made harder due to the damaging precedent set in this case. Overall, the remission granted in the Bilkis Bano case highlights the need to overhaul the existing framework around leniency and prioritize the rights of victims.
Common arguments around this controversial decision
The remission granted to the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case has led to questions about the logic and fairness behind it. Here we address some of the most common arguments made against this decision:
The remission undermines the deterrent effect of the punishment.
While the remission may reduce the deterrent effect to some degree, life imprisonment still serves as a strong deterrent. The remission only reduces the sentence, it does not vacate it. The convicts still must serve over 15 years in prison for their crimes.
The decision shows leniency towards a heinous crime.
The remission was granted based on policy, not the nature of the crime. The policy allows for remission based solely on the portion of the sentence served, not the type of offense. While the crime was undoubtedly heinous, the remission aims to be impartial in applying the policy.
The early release is unjust to the victims and their families.
The suffering of the victims cannot be understated. However, the purpose of punishment under law is deterrence and retribution, not vengeance. While the remission may feel unjust, the law must remain impartial in applying punishment and policy. Retroactively increasing punishment would go against principles of fairness and due process.
There are concerns the convicts may threaten public safety if released.
This is a valid concern, but there are a few mitigating factors. The convicts were not granted an unconditional release – they remain on parole for life. Any criminal behavior will result in re-incarceration. Their age and time served also make recidivism statistically unlikely. However, vigilance and close monitoring of the convicts remain prudent to ensure public safety.
While arguments against it are understandable, the decision appears legally sound and in line with established policy and procedure. The suffering of victims should not be trivialized, but justice must be impartial. Close monitoring of the convicts on parole can address concerns over public safety. The final judgment on this complex issue remains open to debate.
Conclusion
As this case shows, the remission of severe sentences for heinous crimes can be highly arbitrary and unjust. The system failed Bilkis Bano and allowed her attackers to escape just punishment through legal loopholes and political influence. For victims of violent crimes and their loved ones, the trauma never ends. While the law took its course, in the end justice was denied. Going forward, India must reform a system where political connections and money can override the basic human rights of victims. The remission of sentences should be an exceptional act of mercy, not a matter of political favors or legal tricks. True justice demands accountability and consequences, not just for the powerless but also for the powerful. Bilkis Bano deserved far better from a democratic system meant to protect the vulnerable. Her story stands as a cautionary tale of justice denied and a call for reform.
Submitted by Aditya Raj, a law student from Christ (Deemed-to-be) University, Delhi-NCR.