When Mohammed Ali was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in a criminal conspiracy behind the serial bomb blasts in Coimbatore in 1998, which killed 58 persons and injured over 300, he was 23 years old and his young wife, Mubeena, was six months pregnant. Ali has now spent a quarter century of his life, well beyond the usual length of a life term, within the narrow confines of prison. He is 49 years old; his daughter is 25 and the mother of a child. Decades of isolation have completely detached him from family and society, leaving him a wreck.
He is not alone in suffering such painful and protracted confinement. While Ali and 16 other Muslim prisoners convicted in the Coimbatore blasts case have remained incarcerated for decades, a substantial number of Muslim prisoners who were not connected with serious disruptive activities but were convicted for general crimes under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections such as 302 are also suffering the agonisingly ‘extended’ terms.
Neither the State’s executive clemency measures, such as remission, nor bail benefits them, although remission is not a matter of right. Besides, remission does not mean freedom to lead a normal life. It is restricted and monitored living outside prison for the rest of the remitted sentence. The entire process is governed by stringent guidelines. Those who come out on remission are constantly monitored by law enforcers and even a minor violation of the law will lead to its cancellation.
Hence, these prisoners occasionally connect with their families through short and restricted paroles. But non-Muslim prisoners rarely face such problems. However, there are exceptions—the persons convicted and incarcerated for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, and remission for these convicts has been mired in political controversy. The convicts even had to wage tenacious legal battles just to secure parole, leave alone remission. Also read: Bulldozing the idea of India
For people like Mubeena, the daughter of 84-year-old S.A. Basha ‘Bhai’, the mastermind behind the serial bomb blasts, paroles have been “little joys” in a life otherwise marked by agony and sorrow. Mubeena told Frontline: “Paroles reconnect them with us. The law found him [her husband] to be an offender for which he was punished. But he continues to be in jail beyond the stipulated term. We knew he was innocent. God knows that. But we are powerless. Many like him were implicated in that serious offence at that time of violence—around 160 of them.”
The Madras High Court, in response to petitions filed by a batch of 39 convicts against the trial court’s sentence in the bomb blasts case, acquitted 21 persons in 2007, and the then Tamil Nadu government, led by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), gave remission to nine others in 2008. A few others died, while 17, including Mohammed Ali, one of the key accused in the case, remain in prison. Appeals against the prolonged incarceration of these convicts, including Mubeena’s husband, have been pending before the apex court for a decade now. (The serial bombings took place reportedly in retaliation for the killing of 18 Muslims allegedly by Hindu fundamentalists following the murder of a police constable named Selvaraj by a few Muslim youths in Coimbatore in 1997. In the riots that followed, the property of Muslims worth crores of rupees was looted and destroyed.)
Today, several of these prisoners are said to be suffering from various health issues, besides experiencing bouts of anxiety and seizure. Some could come out on parole for treatment, while a few have died of illness and old age. Whether those who have greyed in prison will ever walk out remains uncertain.
Systemic bias
According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), in 2015 Muslims constituted 15.8 per cent of all convicts and 20.9 per cent of undertrials in Indian jails; the percentage of both in Tamil Nadu (around 17 per cent) was almost thrice their population in the State (5.86 per cent). The NCRB data for 2020 showed that 17.7 per cent of all convicts and 24.9 per cent of undertrials were Muslim.
As in the case of those convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi murder case, which still remains controversial decades after the verdict, the issue of Muslim prisoners too gets entangled in a web of political and religious prejudices. Also read: Retreat of democracy
The seemingly indefinite incarceration of Muslim convicts, especially those involved in the bomb blasts case, has wrecked them and their families. Mubeena, who believes in the functioning system of “restorative justice” and “reintegration”, said: “I cannot explain the anxiety and trauma we undergo every day. Keeping them in prison for years is inhuman.”
Protracted imprisonment makes a prisoner more bitter, especially when the rules are enforced with prejudice. Coimbatore-based Mohammed Bashith, who works for prisoners’ rehabilitation, said: “The irony is that even judicial officers before whom we file petitions for bail and parole would be reluctant to issue them. And mind you, not a single person from the majority community who is involved in violence against Muslims remains in prison today. Even a majoritarian leader, allegedly behind the violence against Muslims, remains free till date.” Several activists say that with the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in power at the Centre, the chances of a homecoming for these Muslims are thin.
DMK initiative
However, the DMK-led government in Tamil Nadu has initiated a proactive exercise to respond favourably to the genuine representations of “all eligible prisoners” under remission. This exercise follows a representation from the Muslim community against Government Order No.488 on remission under Article 161 of Constitution, on the grounds that it carried a clause that is inimical to the release of Muslim prisoners.
(Article 161 says: “The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence, of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws.”)
In December 2021, Chief Minister M.K. Stalin set up a six-member committee headed by Justice N. Authinathan (retired) of the Madras High Court “to recommend to the government the premature release of life convicts who had completed 10 and 20 years of their sentences, on humanitarian considerations”. Also read: Muslim prisoners languish in Tamil Nadu sans legal remedies
With no codified remission policy in place, the panel has taken up the job of identifying “eligible prisoners” for remission. Besides, the panel will study the eligibility criteria for prisoners who are elderly, sick and differently abled (not self-inflicted for remission) and those with mental and health issues. These prisoners should have completed 10 years and 20 years of their sentences. The panel said that this would be in accordance with various Supreme Court verdicts and guidelines, besides existing laws and regulations, concerning remission.
Legal experts see it as a socially constructive move that might benefit all suffering prisoners, including those from minority communities. But they are also apprehensive about the hurdles this exercise of compassion could face from other forces, although a State’s final decision under Section 161 cannot be negated. They said that the government’s move has infused confidence in these long-serving prisoners about securing remission.
S. Manoharan, a senior lawyer who has been appearing in cases related to remission for convicts sentenced to life, said: “The act of the Tamil Nadu government should not be construed as mistaken sympathy. Remission and rehabilitation are an integral part of the correctional system. Reconnecting the prisoners to society and to their families at least in the last phase of their lives is the responsibility of a welfare State.” He added: “Rule of law is rule of justice. But in the name of discretionary powers, such rights should not be negated. It is a frustrating experience for any one to see someone being behind bars for 25 years.”
The remission process in Tamil Nadu turned controversial when the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi case sought it. The Supreme Court, acting on a petition from the Centre, cancelled their remission observing that “life sentence is meant for life”.
Politics in remissions
In September 2016, a Constitution Bench ruled that the State government led by the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) did not have suo motu powers to release the convicts on remission without the concurrence of the Centre since the persons were sentenced under Central…