The Supreme Court outlines key considerations for evaluating remission applications.
In the case of Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court not only set aside the remission of 11 convicts but also laid down detailed guidelines for considering remission applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, addresses key factors to be taken into account, providing a comprehensive framework for evaluating such pleas.
The central point of the judgment revolves around the application for remission under Section 432 of the CrPC, which, according to the court, must be directed to the government of the state within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant was convicted, known as the 'appropriate government.' This diverges from a prior Supreme Court decision in May 2022, asserting that the government competent to decide remission pleas was that of the state within the territorial jurisdiction where the offense occurred. The court, considering the earlier decision per incuriam, emphasized that the application for remission should only be made before the appropriate government.
The judgment underscores the significance of compliance with Section 433A, which mandates that a person serving a life sentence can seek remission only after completing fourteen years of imprisonment. It highlights the need for obtaining the presiding judge's opinion from the convicting court, as required by Section 432(2) of the CrPC, along with a certified copy of the trial record.
The court emphasizes that the policy of remission is determined by the appropriate government and should align with the policy in force at the time of conviction. It outlines specific aspects to consider during the evaluation of remission applications, including the societal impact of the crime, the potential for future recurrence, the convict's loss of criminal potentiality, and the socio-economic condition of the convict's family. The bench insists on avoiding any abuse of discretion and underscores the need for consultation under Section 435 of the CrPC.
Furthermore, the court advocates for passing a 'speaking order,' clearly delineating the reasons for granting or refusing remission. It outlines specific tests for judicial review, ensuring a fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary process. The judgment concludes by directing the 11 convicts to surrender within two weeks, emphasizing the supremacy of the rule of law.