'Is right to remission a fundamental right': SC in Bilkis Bano case

A bench comprising justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan questioned whether an Article 32 petition (filed for the enforcement of fundamental rights) could be filed by convicts seeking remission. A counsel, representing one of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, contended before the bench that they have been out for more than a year after release from jail and urged the bench not to snatch away their liberty. Reports ETV Bharat's Sumit Saxena.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday questioned a counsel for a convict in the Bilkis Bano case, whether the right of a convict to seek remission of his sentence of imprisonment is a fundamental right.

A bench comprising justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan questioned whether an Article 32 petition (filed for the enforcement of fundamental rights) could be filed by convicts seeking remission. A counsel, representing one of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, contended before the bench that they have been out for more than a year after release from jail and urged the bench not to snatch away their liberty.

The counsel argued that only Article 226 petitions, which have to be filed before the High Courts, are maintainable to challenge the grant or rejection of remission. The bench asked, "Is the right to seek remission a fundamental right?"

The counsel argued that such a petition could not be filed by the petitioners, who have challenged the premature release of convicts in the Bilkis Bano case since their fundamental rights have not been breached.

The counsel said once his client has been released from jail, his liberty cannot be affected and the petitioners are now seeking to curtail my fundamental right to liberty, it cannot be done under Article 32.

The counsel contended that even under the CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code), victims and complainants have a limited role, and once the sentence has been passed, the role of the victim ceases. It was argued before the bench that convicts rights; and balance of convenience should be taken into consideration.

The hearing remained inconclusive; it will continue on October 4. The apex court was hearing petitions challenging the decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to 11 convicts who had gang-raped Bilkis Bano and murdered her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots.

On September 14, the apex court shot a volley of questions at a counsel, representing one of the accused convicted in the gangrape of Bilkis Bano and the murder of her family members, saying explain how these convicts deserved premature release from prison, they enjoyed long period of parole, and how can be some convicts be privileged?