A violation of justice

Apex court intervention is vital

The remission of the life sentence for 11 men convicted of the gang rape of Bilkis Yakub Rasool, then five months pregnant, and the murder of her child and other members of her family during the 2002 Gujarat riots represents a new low for both the judicial system and the Indian polity. Natural justice alone dictated that the criminals deserved no mercy. But the intricacies of the law that led to this travesty of justice demand an urgent review both by the Supreme Court and the government. Though the committee that “unanimously” decided in favour of remission claimed it was merely following the rule book, it is clear that basic principles of morality and humanity were overlooked while arriving at this decision.

Ironically, though, the root of the problem lies in the Supreme Court ruling earlier this year when it agreed to hear the plea of one of the convicts for early release. The convict quoted a 2012 Gujarat High Court order that allows release for life-term prisoners who have served 14 years in jail. The apex court’s decisions unwittingly opened the door for this appalling amnesty. First, it ruled it was the government of Gujarat, the state in which the crime was committed, that was competent to examine the remission plea, and not Maharashtra, where the trial was shifted owing to the intimidation of Ms Rasool and her family.  Second, the Supreme Court ruled that the government should consider the release application under a 1992 policy, which does not state the nature of the crime when considering the remission plea. This was changed, in fact, in 2014 to exclude from remission people accused of gang rape and murder. These pronouncements gave the committee that considered the remission — it comprised ruling party 

members — the cover to claim it had followed the laid-down procedure. No member of the committee explained why it did not consult the Centre — something required under the Criminal Procedure Code.

No less worrying has been the Centre’s silence on the issue. Indeed, it is bizarre that thousands of under-trials languish in prison for years without being convicted — a point the prime minister has made on several occasions — whereas 11 men who manifestly committed deeply savage acts are freed and feted with garlands on their return. This apart, the Ministry of Home Affairs had instructed the states and Union Territories to grant special remission to categories of prisoners, but, critically, this amnesty did not include prisoners convicted of rape. It is, therefore, vital for the government to take note of this development and get the decision reversed. The Supreme Court too has the powers to take suo motu cognisance of the case. It did so during the migrant crisis of 2020. Basic justice demands that it do so now.