Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024 INSC 24), addressed critical issues pertaining to the jurisdictional authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the sanctity of the rule of law in the context of remission orders. This case revolved around the premature release of convicts involved in heinous crimes during the Gujarat riots of 2002, challenging the procedural and constitutional propriety of the remission orders issued by the Government of Gujarat.

Summary of the Judgment

In this case, the petitioner, Bilkis Yakub Rasool, a survivor of brutal gang rapes and murders during the 2002 Gujarat riots, sought to quash the remission orders that led to the early release of convicts (respondent Nos. 3 to 13) by the State of Gujarat. The convicts had been sentenced to life imprisonment for their involvement in the atrocities but were released prematurely through remission orders dated August 10, 2022.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined whether the Government of Gujarat had the jurisdiction to issue these remission orders as per Section 432 of the CrPC. The Court scrutinized the procedural adherence to obtaining the presiding judge's opinion, the appropriate government's authority, and the substantive fairness in granting remission to individuals convicted of grave offenses.

The Court concluded that the State of Gujarat was not the appropriate government under Section 432(7) of the CrPC to grant remission to these convicts, as the trial and conviction had been conducted in the State of Maharashtra. Consequently, the Court declared the remission orders to be illegitimate, nullifying them and reinstating the convicts' incarceration.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referred to several pivotal cases that shaped the legal framework surrounding remission and the discretion of the executive in such matters:

• Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981): Emphasized the importance of reformation over retribution in the context of punishment.
• Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013): Clarified that remission policies in force at the time of conviction must guide the remission process.
• Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016): Reinforced that the appropriate government under Section 432 of the CrPC is the state in which the offense was committed, unless the offense falls under the executive power of the Union.
• Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (Supra): Identified key factors to be considered by the executive when granting remission, including the nature of the offense and the likelihood of recidivism.
• Shantilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007): Distinguished between substantive sentences and penalties imposed for non-payment of fines, underscoring that penalties do not equate to new substantive sentences.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's legal reasoning was grounded in the strict interpretation of Section 432 of the CrPC and the principle of rule of law. The Court delineated the concept of the "appropriate Government" as encapsulated in Section 432(7) of the CrPC, asserting that impeachment of jurisdiction could render any exercise of remission power by a State as illegitimate.

The Court underscored the mandatory nature of obtaining the presiding judge's opinion as per Section 432(2), refuting the contention that the term "may" implied discretion. The failure of the Gujarat government to conform to procedural mandates, including disregarding the presiding judge's opinion from the Maharashtra court and failing to account for the convicts' non-payment of fines, culminated in the annulment of the remission orders.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the conflation of remission with pardon, clarifying that remission under Section 432 is a corrective measure within the judicial framework and is subject to legal constraints and procedural safeguards.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for the criminal justice system in India:

• It reinforces the necessity for executive bodies to adhere strictly to statutory provisions and procedural mandates when exercising remission powers.
• Establishes a clear precedent that remission orders made by a State without jurisdiction are null and void, thereby safeguarding the rule of law against arbitrary executive actions.
• Averts potential misuse of remission powers by highlighting the accountability of States in following due process, especially in cases involving severe human rights violations.
• Underscores the judiciary's role as the guardian of constitutional morality and legal integrity, ensuring that executive discretion does not override established legal norms.

Consequently, States must meticulously evaluate their jurisdiction and procedural compliance before issuing remission orders, particularly in cases involving grave offenses against humanity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts within this judgment warrant clarification to ensure comprehensive understanding:

• Section 432 of the CrPC: Empowers the appropriate Government to suspend or remit a convict's sentence. Sub-section (7) defines the "appropriate Government," generally the State where the offense occurred, unless superseded by Union laws.
• Remission vs. Pardon: Remission refers to the reduction or suspension of a sentence under legal procedure, whereas a pardon is a grant of clemency that absolves the convict of the punishment, irrespective of the conviction status.
• Rule of Law: A foundational principle ensuring that all actions by the government are based on, and limited by, law. It prevents arbitrary governance and ensures fairness in legal processes.
• Doctrine of Per Incuriam: A legal doctrine whereby a judgment is considered void due to its oversight or ignorance of relevant law, rendering its precedential value null.
• Usurpation of Power: Occurs when an authority or state body exercises powers beyond its legal jurisdiction or authority, invalidating any actions taken thusly.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024 INSC 24) serves as a stringent reminder of the paramount importance of jurisdictional accuracy and procedural fidelity in the exercise of executive powers within the criminal justice system. By unequivocally nullifying the remission orders issued by the State of Gujarat without proper jurisdiction, the Court has fortified the rule of law against potential executive overreach.

This judgment not only safeguards the rights of victims and the societal fabric but also ensures that remission powers are judiciously and legally exercised, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. As a beacon of judicial scrutiny, the Supreme Court reaffirms that adherence to statutory provisions and procedural mandates is non-negotiable, thereby upholding the sanctity of the Constitution and reinforcing public confidence in the legal system.