Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Raising doubts about the concurring opinions of competent authorities regarding the release of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang-rape case, Supreme Court on Thursday said that the opinion should show “independent application of mind” even if it is not backed by elaborate reasons.
“How is a concurring opinion arrived at? There should be an independent application of mind, even in arriving at concurring opinion. It need not be supported by elaborate reasons, but it should show independent application of mind,” said a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan while considering a batch of pleas challenging the convicts’ remission.
The court also observed that Bilkis, along with other petitioners, were not deprived of the right to move court just because the Supreme Court had earlier left it on the Gujarat government to decide on the convicts’ remission applications.
“The petitioners are challenging the remission order, which came after the order on the writ petition. You cannot say the remission order cannot be questioned by anybody because of the (SC’s) May 2022 order… You may have 101 grounds, only one or two may be pressed,” said Justice Nagarathna.
After learning that one of the convicts is practising law after the remission, the bench said, “Can license to practice law be given after conviction? Law is supposed to be a noble profession. Bar Council of India has to say whether a convict can practise law. You are a convict; there is no doubt about that. You are out of jail due to the remission granted to you. Conviction remains, only the sentence is cut short,” the court said.
Section 24A of the Advocates Act states that a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude cannot be enrolled as an advocate.
It also states that disqualification for enrolment shall cease to have effect after a period of two years has elapsed since his release or dismissal or removal.
Advocate Sonia Mathur, representing one of the convicts, drew the court’s attention to the overcrowding of jails to substantiate remission. The bench, while expressing concerns regarding overcrowding of jails, said,
“We wish you would canvass reformative theory for all prisoners who have completed 14 years in India. How many remissions have taken place? Why are our jails overcrowded? They should be eligible for remission in the first place.”
Bilkis Bano was 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped while fleeing the horror of the communal riots that broke out after the Godhra train-burning incident.
Her three-year-old daughter was among the seven family members killed in the riots.
The Gujarat government had released the 11 convicts on the basis of the 1992 remission policy and not the policy adopted in 2014 which is effective today.
Under the 2014 policy, state cannot grant remission for a crime investigated by the CBI or where people have been convicted of murder with rape or gang-rape.
The hearing in the case will resume on August 31.
The top court had on August 17 said state governments should not be selective in granting remission to convicts and the opportunity to reform and reintegrate with society should be given to every prisoner, as it told the Gujarat government which defended its decision of premature release of all 11 convicts.
NEW DELHI: Raising doubts about the concurring opinions of competent authorities regarding the release of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang-rape case, Supreme Court on Thursday said that the opinion should show “independent application of mind” even if it is not backed by elaborate reasons.
“How is a concurring opinion arrived at? There should be an independent application of mind, even in arriving at concurring opinion. It need not be supported by elaborate reasons, but it should show independent application of mind,” said a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan while considering a batch of pleas challenging the convicts’ remission.
The court also observed that Bilkis, along with other petitioners, were not deprived of the right to move court just because the Supreme Court had earlier left it on the Gujarat government to decide on the convicts’ remission applications. googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
“The petitioners are challenging the remission order, which came after the order on the writ petition. You cannot say the remission order cannot be questioned by anybody because of the (SC’s) May 2022 order… You may have 101 grounds, only one or two may be pressed,” said Justice Nagarathna.
After learning that one of the convicts is practising law after the remission, the bench said, “Can license to practice law be given after conviction? Law is supposed to be a noble profession. Bar Council of India has to say whether a convict can practise law. You are a convict; there is no doubt about that. You are out of jail due to the remission granted to you. Conviction remains, only the sentence is cut short,” the court said.
Section 24A of the Advocates Act states that a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude cannot be enrolled as an advocate.
It also states that disqualification for enrolment shall cease to have effect after a period of two years has elapsed since his release or dismissal or removal.
Advocate Sonia Mathur, representing one of the convicts, drew the court’s attention to the overcrowding of jails to substantiate remission. The bench, while expressing concerns regarding overcrowding of jails, said,
“We wish you would canvass reformative theory for all prisoners who have completed 14 years in India. How many remissions have taken place? Why are our jails overcrowded? They should be eligible for remission in the first place.”
Bilkis Bano was 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped while fleeing the horror of the communal riots that broke out after the Godhra train-burning incident.
Her three-year-old daughter was among the seven family members killed in the riots.
The Gujarat government had released the 11 convicts on the basis of the 1992 remission policy and not the policy adopted in 2014 which is effective today.
Under the 2014 policy, state cannot grant remission for a crime investigated by the CBI or where people have been convicted of murder with rape or gang-rape.
The hearing in the case will resume on August 31.
The top court had on August 17 said state governments should not be selective in granting remission to convicts and the opportunity to reform and reintegrate with society should be given to every prisoner, as it told the Gujarat government which defended its decision of premature release of all 11 convicts.
