In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court has quashed the Gujarat government’s decision to grant remission to the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case. This decision has been hailed as a correction by the court itself, as it acknowledges that it did not ask the necessary questions when it was petitioned by one of the convicts in 2022. The ability to rectify errors is a hallmark of an enlightened judiciary, and the Indian system has demonstrated this time and again.
The court’s verdict not only addresses procedural issues but also upholds the rule of law as a fundamental principle of democracy. The court emphasized that the state should perform its duty, and when it fails to do so, the court will step in. The Gujarat government had granted remission to the convicts without possessing the power to do so, and they had suppressed important facts from the court.
While the court’s decision is based on technical grounds, it also raises deeper questions about remission policies in India. Clear and transparent procedures, along with appropriate substantive considerations, are necessary to prevent the misuse of remission. The court acknowledged the competing interests in such cases, balancing the rights of the victim and the claim of a convict to a second chance.
The verdict has set aside the remission granted by the Gujarat government, and the convicts can now appeal to the Maharashtra government for relief. It remains to be seen how this case will unfold further, but the court’s decision has reaffirmed the importance of the rule of law and the judiciary’s role in upholding it.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Bilkis Bano case is a significant step towards ensuring justice and upholding the rule of law. It highlights the judiciary’s ability to rectify errors and guard against wayward justice. The case also raises important questions about remission policies in India, emphasizing the need for clear procedures and substantive considerations.
