In response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the remission of 11 convicts in Bilkis Bano gangrape case, the Gujarat government reiterated that the release was based on the "good behaviour" of the convicts. The state government also disclosed that the remission was approved by the Central government. The release of the convicts on the occasion of India's 75th Independence Day had stirred a sort of public outrage then, because the brutality of the crime committed way back in 2002 was beyond description. A special CBI court judge had opined against the release, saying that "the accused had no enmity or any relation with the victims. The crime was committed only on the grounds that the victims belonged to a particular religion." The judge had described the incident as the "worst form of hate crime and crime against humanity." Apart from the gruesomeness of the crime on the ground, the remission order was technically challenged because it was based on the remission policy of 1992, and not the updated version of 2014. Even if the state government's ignorance were to be forgotten for a moment, how could the Centre — which itself in its guidelines had asserted that prisoners convicted for the offence of rape were not eligible to be released prematurely under the special remission scheme to commemorate 75 years of Independence — be expected to approve the remission! This duality between words and deeds raises serious questions around the sanctity of law, administrative commitment and procedural justice. Under Indian laws, in addition to the power of remission accorded to the President (under Article 72 of the Constitution) and governors (under Article 161), state governments, too, under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), can order premature releases. Though prison falls under the state list of the seventh schedule of the Indian Constitution, state governments are required to seek approval of the Central government in case of involvement of certain Central agencies during the investigation process. This is where the role of Centre comes in. An obvious question is what made the Central government defy its own guidelines to allow the remission of convicts jailed for crimes involving unparalleled brutality? In principle, the idea of remission is based on parameters of reformation and discretion of the state. While the discretion of the state is evidently clear, there is hardly any evidence of reformation among the convicts. Rather than the change in criminal mindset, it appears, the fulfillment of 14-year-criteria under Section 433 of the CrPC for release of convicts jailed under imprisonment for life, or death penalty, served as the trigger. Seemingly, the completion of 14 years was awaited to lift the technical hold. So, was it the reformation of the convicts that earned them their release, with garlanding and all? Or was there some political convenience or urgency? Was the remission order — as alleged by some — meant to suit the larger Hindutva agenda that is dear to the BJP which rules both the Centre and Gujarat? If that be the case, nothing could be more shameful. Even the circulation of such a narrative is deeply damaging for Indian democracy. The inhumane crime against Bilkis Bano and her family members is rather too big to be looked at through the communal lens. The crime needs to be looked at through the larger lens of humanity. An irrefutable reality is that a 21-year-old pregnant woman was gangraped by a group of communally charged men in 2002; and her entire family was crushed to death. Bano fought a long and risky legal battle to get her offenders behind the bar. In contrast, the moot question is what her offenders have fixed right to deserve the speediest possible mercy of the state? This question still awaits a convincing answer. If it is left unanswered, it will shake the confidence of women and marginalized sections from India's legal justice system — the confidence and trust with which Bano threw her entire life fighting for justice!