The laws around remission policy (GS Paper 2, Polity and Constitution)
Why in news?
- The Supreme Court recently set aside the remission of 11 convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for the gang rape of Bilkis Bano and murder of her family, during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.
- The remission order was passed by the Gujarat government in August 2022.
What are clemency powers?
- Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution provide powers to the President and Governor respectively to grant pardon, commutation, remission, respite or reprieve to a convict.
- These are sovereign powers vested in the heads of the Union and State executive to be exercised on the advice of the council of ministers.
- Apart from this, the appropriate State government under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) may remit the whole or part of the punishment to which a convict has been sentenced.
- In case of life imprisonment convicts, this remission can be done only after a period of 14 years in jail as per Section 433A of the CrPC.
What is the background to the remission in this case?
- The heinous crimes for which the 11 persons were convicted were committed in Gujarat in March 2002. However, considering the need for fair trial, these cases were shifted to Maharashtra by the Supreme Court in 2004. A CBI trial court in Mumbai sentenced the convicts to life imprisonment in 2008.
- One of the convicts, Radheshyam Shah, moved the Supreme Court in 2022 seeking directions to the Gujarat government to consider his remission application under the State’s ‘Remission policy’ of 1992.
- The argument was that this was the policy in force at the time of the commission of offence (2002) and at the time of sentencing (2008).
- The Supreme Court in an order in May 2022, directed the Gujarat government to consider Shah’s application for premature release under the 1992 policy.
- The Godhra Jail Advisory Committee (JAC) headed by the District Magistrate unanimously recommended the remission of sentence for the 11 convicts and they were freed in August 2022.
What are the issues involved?
- The premature release of the 11 convicts by the Gujarat government raised certain serious legal and moral questions.
Appropriate State government for considering the remission application:
- The provisions of CrPC are quite clear, that the appropriate State government for considering the remission application should have been Maharashtra where the sentencing happened and not Gujarat where the offence was committed or jail term was being served.
- Also, the law requires the opinion of the presiding judge of the convicting court to be obtained before considering the remission petition, which was not followed in this case.
Grounds for remission:
- The Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar versus Union of India (2000) had laid down five grounds on which remission is to be considered. The first of these is whether the offence is an individual act of crime that does not affect society.
- It would be preposterous to surmise that such a heinous crime does not impact the conscience of a civilised society.
Case-by-case basis:
- The Supreme Court in Sangeet versus State of Haryana (2012) had held that a convict serving life imprisonment does not have a right to be prematurely released on completion of 14 years in jail and that remission should be considered only on a case-by-case basis.
- In light of this judgment, the Union Home Ministry had issued an advisory in February 2013 prescribing that remission should not be granted in a ‘wholesale manner’.
- The Gujarat government had revised its ‘Remission policy’ in 2014 in line with this advisory and had explicitly barred remission for those convicted of rape and murder. However, the instant remission was granted based on the policy of 1992 (that had no such exclusions) as it was in force at the time of conviction.
What did the Supreme Court rule?
- The Supreme Court in its order categorically held that the Gujarat government is not the appropriate government to consider the remission petition.
- It held that the May 2022 order of the Supreme Court, that asked the Gujarat government to consider the remission petitions, was obtained through fraud and suppression of facts before the court.
- Hence, it held the May 2022 order of the Supreme Court to be a nullity. It further ordered the surrender of all the 11 persons before jail authorities within two weeks.
- It held that the appropriate government for considering the remission petitions in the instant case is Maharashtra and it may consider their petitions in accordance with law and the guidelines laid down by the Court.
- This order has reinforced the faith in our judicial system and ‘rule of law’ by setting aside a blatantly perverse order that shook the conscience of society at large and women in particular.
- It is expected that the Maharashtra government would follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the Laxman Naskar case under which such crimes that affects the society at large deserve no mercy.
Navy gets its first MALE drone made by Adani
(GS Paper 3, Defence)
Why in news?
- The Indian Navy recently took delivery of its first India-made Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) drone, acquired under emergency procurement mechanism, to augment India’s ability to keep a close eye on the waters of the Indian Ocean.
Details:
- It is manufactured by Adani Defence and Aerospace in partnership with the Israeli firm Elbit, in Hyderabad.
- The Drishti 10 StarLiner, with an endurance of 36 hours, satellite connectivity and the ability to carry a payload of 450 kg, is the Indian version of the original Hermes StarLiner.
- The UAV will fly from Hyderabad to Porbandar in Gujarat to be pressed into naval maritime operations.
- Both the Navy and the Army have gone in for two drones each, with a service ceiling of 30,000 feet, under emergency procurement which allows them to bypass tardy bureaucratic procedures for deals up to Rs 300 crore.
Salient features:
- With state-of-the-art sensors, enhanced endurance, advanced communication capabilities as well as new-age technologies like automatic take-off and landing (ATOL), Drishti would be a potent force multiplier, adding more capability and credibility to Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions across the Indian Ocean region.
- The versatility and flexibility offered through modularity and mobility of ground support equipment would enable us to operate it from any naval air stations across “Bharat”.
- The drone is qualified for flight in civilian non-segregated airspace and in adverse weather conditions thanks to its unique and unlimited deicing mechanism.
- The drone also has Starliner features over-the-horizon, persistent multi-mission, multi-sensor capabilities with a class-leading payload carrying capacity.
- The Navy currently operates tactical drones in addition to the four High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) drones called ‘Sea Guardians’.
Heron drones:
- The Army, which has procured a number of drones of varying capabilities, has already bought four Satellite Communication-enabled Israeli Heron Mark-II drones.
- The Indian military plans to upgrade the existing fleet of Heron Mark-I with similar capabilities that will allow it to operate them with longer endurance and capabilities, as reported earlier.
- The Herons currently have an endurance of about 24 hours and can transmit back live video feed and images within a range of about 200-250 km. With satellite-link, they will have almost unlimited range of transmission and can be fully exploited to their endurance capabilities.
MQ-9B drones:
- Meanwhile, the Army, Navy and the Air Force are looking at the acquisition of 31 HALE (MQ-9B) drones which will be inducted into the Indian military over the next three-four years.
- Of the 31, Navy will get 15 MQ-9B drones in maritime and anti-submarine warfare kits, while the Army and the Indian Air Force (IAF) will get eight each of the land version.
