SC dismissing Bilkis Bano plea is a case of non-application of mind
SC dismisses Bilkis Bano’s review petition of the May 2022 judgment of release of 11 rape convicts
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by Gujarat riots victim Bilkis Bano in which she had asked the Court to review its May 2022 judgment that told the Gujarat government to consider the convicts’ release plea.
The Supreme Court, in its November 2021 judgment, said, “The Court must display its conscious application of mind even while dismissing the appeal at the admission stage.”
This verdict seems to be delivered without application of mind or conscience by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Recap:
For those not in the know, one of the most shameful and dastardly religious riots broke out in the Indian state of Gujarat in the year 2002, when the current Indian Prime Minister was the Chief Minister of the state.
The riots were triggered off when allegedly some Muslims sealed and torched some train compartments ferrying pilgrims, killing them. This then triggered an alleged retaliatory action from the majority Hindus, resulting in one of Independent India’s most horrific carnage, in which hoards of rampaging Hindus went on a massive rape, pillage and killing spree across the usually peaceful state killing thousands of Muslims.
Bilkis Bano and her family were among those victims. Her entire family was massacred, her three year old daughter was killed in front of her by these 11 men (who were recently freed on Aug 15), who then gangraped her.
After an uphill legal battle, in which the case had to be shifted to neighbouring Maharashtra, these 11 men were convicted and given a sentence of life imprisonment, and jailed in Gujarat.
That is another story that they were supposedly given parole numerous times in the ensuing period.
Anyhow, Gujarat state officially applied to the Supreme Court to free these 11, as they had behaved ‘admirably’, and deserved to be freed.
SC’s verdict:
In May 2022, a bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath ruled that the Gujarat Government had the jurisdiction to consider the remission request as the offence took place in Gujarat. The bench further directed the Gujarat Government to decide the application per the Remission Policy of 1992 within two months.
In the order dismissing the review petition, the bench observed, “There appears no error apparent on the face of the record, which may call for review of the judgment dated May 13 2022”.The bench further pronounced that the precedents cited in the review petition are of no assistance to the petitioner.
What happened in Bilkis’s case?
Bilkis, through her lawyer Advocate Shobha Gupta, had sought a review of the judgment by primarily opposing that it was contrary to Section 432(7)(b) of CrPC, which states that the appropriate government to decide remission is the government of the State where the trial was held. Allowing the writ petition, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Gujarat High Court (which held that remission has to be decided by the Maharashtra Government). However, no special leave petition was filed challenging the High Court judgment.
Order passed by #SupremeCourt dismissing Bilkis Bano’s review petition against the judgment of the Court allowing Gujarat Govt to decide the remission of 11 convicts.#SupremeCourtOfIndia #BilkisBanoCase pic.twitter.com/oAWNd4Q8EJ
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) December 17, 2022
Bano contended that it amounts to a grave procedural irregularity, as a judgment cannot be set aside under Article 32 of the Constitution. She argued in the review petition that the convict had “cleverly suppressed” the fact that the case was related to the Gujarat riots. Neither was Bilkis made a party, nor was her name mentioned in the petition. Thus, the gravity and seriousness of the crime were suppressed from the Court, and the Court was misled into passing the order. The 11 convicts serving life term walked scot-free on August 15 as they were granted premature release on account of “good behaviour” – under a 1992 policy by Gujarat’s BJP government with a nod from the Union Home Ministry.
Read more: After Jaishankar’s befitting reply, Pakistan’s FM Bilawal Bhutto makes personal attack on PM Modi
Amendment of Remission Policy of 1992The latest policy says gangrape and murder convicts cannot be granted early release, but the Supreme Court had agreed with the argument that the 1992 policy, which had no such exception, applied to these men. That 1992 policy was, technically, in effect when the men were convicted in 2008.Challenging this, Bilkis Bano had also argued that Gujarat was not the right State to decide as the trial was held in neighbouring Maharashtra.
The trial had been moved to Mumbai on the Supreme Court’s instructions in 2004 after Ms Bano said a fair trial could not be held in Gujarat.
Bilkis had also filed a petition challenging the decision of the Gujarat government. Still, it was adjourned last week as one of the judges, Justice Bela Trivedi, recused from the case without citing any reason.
