Law supposed to be noble profession: SC raises question on Bilkis Bano convict practising law

The Supreme Court observed that the legal profession is supposed to be a noble one and expressed surprise after knowing that one of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano rape-murder case was practising law after the remission of his sentence.

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said the remark in response to the counsel representing Radheshyam Shah, one of 11 people convicted of gang-raping Bilkis Bano, who informed the court that the convict now practices as a motor vehicle accident claims lawyer in Gujarat.

Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, representing convict Radheshyam Shah, argued that the purpose of punishment isn’t vengeance, but rather reform and rehabilitation. To support his claim, Malhotra presented a report detailing the conduct of the convict while in jail.

“He has participated in reform and correctional programmes in jail and received an appreciation certificate. He has completed Master’s courses in arts, science, and rural development through open learning. He was also working in the jail office. He is a graduate from before his conviction,” Malhotra said.

How can he practice law? SC asks Bilkis Bano case convict’s lawyer

Advocate Malhotra revealed that convict Radheshyam Shah also worked as a para-legal volunteer within the jail, assisting fellow prisoners with legal matters. “In fact, he happened to be a motor vehicle accident claim lawyer in lower courts,” he said.

After the last remark, Justice Nagarathna asked if the convict was practising law currently, to which the advocate replied in affirmative.

“He has started practising again. He was a lawyer [before conviction] and he has now continued to practise. He has to earn his bread,” Malhotra said.

“Can a license to practise law be given after conviction? Law is supposed to be a noble profession,” Justice Bhuyan asked.

Advocate Malhotra replied, “Even the Parliament is supposed to be noble, but everyday parliamentarians are convicted.”

However, the Supreme Court bench was not impressed, and said, “The bar council has to say, no? Whether a convict can be allowed to practise law? He is a convict. There is no doubt about it.”

However, Advocate Malhotra said that if the convict is not allowed to practice law, then the concept of reformation and rehabilitation would ‘go for a toss’. “If he is not given any chance to be reintegrated into society, he would be a secluded person. It would just be like a jail for him,” he added.

A bench consisting of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a series of pleas against the decision by the Gujarat government to grant remission to 11 convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for their roles in multiple murders and violent sexual assaults during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat. Last year, on Independence Day, these convicts were released upon the approval of their application for remission by the state government.

The discussion unfolded as part of a larger hearing regarding the Gujarat government’s decision to grant remission to the convicts. The Supreme Court received multiple pleas challenging this decision, with Bilkis Bano herself approaching the court to challenge the premature release of the convicts.

The hearing in the case of ‘Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India’ will continue on August 31.