The year that was—1

THIS year began on a positive note. A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment setting aside the remission granted by the government of Gujarat to the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case.

The case was of great significance not only for the reason that the eleven men had been convicted of rape and murder in the pogrom of 2002 in Gujarat, and compelled to be sent back to prison to serve sentences but also for the reason that it reversed a judgment of two-judges comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Vikram Nath by virtue of which they had been granted remission, under the mistaken impression that it was the state of Gujarat which had the jurisdiction to grant permission rather than the state of Maharashtra.

In Maharashtra, there were guidelines in place indicating that in case of sexual offences, remission ought not to be granted unless the convicts have undergone 28 years in prison. Bypassing this requirement, the convicts had approached the state of Gujarat, which, relying on a guideline of 1992, granted remission after 14 years.

The remission had received condemnation from a wide spectrum of society, given the context in which the rape and murder had occurred. The judgment, which came in January this year, was a breath of fresh air and restored not only the dignity and security of Bilkis Bano but also the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

Soon thereafter, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the electoral bonds case. This was no doubt a history-making judgment. Some have argued it was too little too late. A five-judge Bench comprising then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices (now CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, directed the disclosure of the names of the persons who had purchased the bonds.

When the names were disclosed, it became clear that there was a nexus between some of the persons who had purchased the bonds and the grant of bail to them under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This nexus was never probed, nor were the monies ever confiscated from the political party to whom they were given.

In March, there was another significant judgment by a seven-judge Bench comprising then CJI Chandrachud and Justices A.S. Bopanna, M.M. Sundresh, P.S. Narasimha, J.B. Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra on immunity from prosecution for receiving bribes for casting votes or making speeches on the floor of the House.

In 1998, a 3-2 decision by a five-judge Bench had held that members of Parliament and legislative assemblies accepting bribes and voting or asking questions in the House would enjoy immunity under the Constitution.

Then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao was not prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act in relation to voting in the Parliament on the ground that what happens inside the Parliament could not be the subject matter of prosecution.

This ruling has now been reversed, bringing in a sense of accountability on the question of cash for votes, and is a significant victory for the functioning of parliamentary democracy.