The Supreme Court expressed surprise after observing that one of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano rape and murder case practise law after his conviction, the remission of his sentence notwithstanding. Radheshyam Shah, one of the 11 convicts who were released prematurely, informed the court that he has started practising law after getting out of jail. The Gujarat government had released the 11 convicts on the basis of the 1992 remission policy and not the policy adopted in 2014 which is effective today.
The Apex Court, however, observed that law is supposed to be a noble profession. "Post-conviction, whether licence to practise can be given? Law is supposed to be a noble profession. Bar Council (of India) has to say whether a convict can practise law. You are a convict, there is no doubt about that. You are out of jail due to the remission granted to you. Conviction remains only the sentence is cut short," the court said.
What the rule says
Section 24A of the Advocates Act states that a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude cannot be enrolled as an advocate. It also states that disqualification for enrolment shall cease to have effect after a period of two years has elapsed since his release or dismissal or removal.
Radheshyam Shah's defence
Advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for Radheshyam Shah said, "Today, almost a year has lapsed and there has not been a single case against me. I happen to be lawyer at a motor accident claims tribunal. I was a lawyer and I have again started practising," Malhotra submitted. He added, "It is nowhere mentioned in either of the remission policies that all the stakeholders have to give unanimous opinion for release of a convict nor does it specify that it should be majority decision which should prevail on the decision-making process. All that it says is that the State Government should collate various opinions from different quarters in order to arrive at a premature policy decision."
PTI inputs
