A release that may be lawful, but not right

The Bilkis Bano case has followed the law and due process, but is still surprising for at least three reasons.

The early release of the 11 men convicted of gang rape and murder — sentenced to life, they spent a little over 15 years in jail — in the Bilkis Bano case has followed the law and due process, but is still surprising for at least three reasons.

Questions about whether the remission was done with an eye on the Gujarat polls are only natural — especially in the context of the welcome the convicts received on their release.  (Source: Twitter)

One, those convicted of heinous crimes — and this case is the very definition of the term — are not often released by remitting their sentences. Indeed, the Union government’s advisory to states releasing convicts on the occasion of India’s 75th year of Independence, said those sentenced for murder and rape should not be considered. To be sure, these convicts were released under a standard remission process following the 1992 policy of the Gujarat government, and not under the special one. Two, the alacrity with which the convicts were released. It was only in May that the Supreme Court said the Gujarat government could consider their request for remission (the crime was committed in the state, but the trial was held in Maharashtra). Three, the manner in which the Union government may have signed off on the remission remains unclear. Those convicted in cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation can usually be released only after the Union government endorses the state government’s decision to remit their sentences, according to existing guidelines.

Given these, questions about whether the remission was done with an eye on the Gujarat polls are only natural — especially in the context of the welcome the convicts received on their release. That the remission committee set up by the Gujarat government (the final discretion on remission matters lies with the home department of the state administration), and the Union, chose to decide on the issue by adopting a narrow legal and by-the-letter-view, and ignored the larger moral question is disappointing. The release may be lawful, but it is not right.