The Supreme Court has fixed August 7 for final disposal of pleas challenging remission granted last year to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano’s gang rape case and murder of her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots.
A division Bench consisting of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the plea of Bilkis Bano today in the apex court. After 14 years in prison, the convicts were given remission by the Gujarat government last year on August 15, last year on grounds of “good behaviour.” Bilkis Bano’s plea argued that the premature release of the convicts is unlawful.
Also Read: Bilkis Bano Case: SC To Set Up Special Bench To Review Remission
Earlier this year, the matter was brought before a bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph (now retired) and Nagarathna. Justice Joseph orally remarked that the repeated objections raised by the respondents, including the claim of not receiving summons, were an obvious attempt to avoid having the case heard by that particular Bench.
Justice Joseph remarked, “Today it is [Bilkis Bano], tomorrow it can be me or you… What were the standards you applied for remission?”
The Case
Bilkis, who was 21 years old and pregnant at the time of the gang-rape, had seven members of her family, including her three year old daughter, murdered by the 11 convicts. These convicts were later sentenced to life imprisonment, albeit after the SC intervened.
The 11 rapists involved in the case are Jaswant Chatur Nai, Govind Akham Nai, Shailesh Chimanlal Bhatt, Bipinchandra Kaniyalal Joshi, Keshari Khima Vohaniya, Pradip Ramana Modhiya, Baka Khima Vohaniya, Raju Babulal Soni, Mithesh Chimanlal Bhatt, Ramesh Rupa Chandana, and Radheshyam Bhagawandas Shah. The remission of rapists was celebrated and the reports felicitated when they stepped out of jail. A BJP MLA C K Raolji had called the reports Sanskari Rapists (cultured rapists) when they were released.
One of the convicts, Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah aka Lala Vakil, had filed a petition against the Gujarat High Court’s dismissal of his plea for premature release.
Last year, on May 13, a Supreme Court division bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath ruled that the Gujarat government was the appropriate government to decide on the convicts’ request for premature release. The court also ruled that the remission decision should be made within two months in accordance with the state government’s July 1992 policy which was applicable when the trial of the 11 convicts concluded in 2008.
The 11 convicts were convicted by a sessions court in Mumbai in 2008 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including murder, gang-rape and unlawful assembly. The trial was shifted from Gujarat to Maharashtra based on the Supreme Court’s directive in 2004 which mandated the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate Bano’s case and ensure a fair trial by shifting it to Maharashtra.
The Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court later upheld the conviction. However, the May 13 judgement was seen as violating the binding precedent set by the five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India versus V. Sriharan Murugan & Ors (2015). According to that judgement, the appropriate government for granting remission is determined by the state in which the accused was convicted and sentenced.
Bano filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s judgement in Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah Lala Vakil case, but the Bench that had given the judgement comprising Justices Rastogi and Nath dismissed Bano’s review petition.
About the premature release
The premature release of the convicts triggered a public outcry, leading to several petitions challenging the remission. Civil society members, politicians, academicians, retired bureaucrats and activists besides Bilkis Bano herself filed petitions arguing that the remission was legally flawed.
Also Read: Bilkis Bano Case: Convict Released For ‘Good Behaviour’ Accused Of Outraging Woman’s Modesty In 2020
It was argued that the decision to grant premature release actually violated a circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs as part of the “Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav” celebration, an initiative to mark India’s 75th year of independence. The circular provided for special remission to prisoners but excluded certain categories such as rape convicts.
On October 18, 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the petitions challenging the remission. As the CBI conducted the probe, the Union government’s approval was required before providing remission to the convicts, which was granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs on July 11, 2022, following Gujarat government’s evidence.
However, Nandkumar Nair, the superintendent of police, special crime branch, CBI Mumbai, opposed the premature release, describing the crimes committed by the convicts as heinous, serious and grave. Anand L. Yawalkar, a special CBI judge at the city civil and sessions court in Greater Bombay also opposed the premature release stating that the crimes were motivated by hatred and constituted the worst form of hate crime and crime against humanity.
On March 22 of this year, a special Bench was constituted by the Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, to hear the plea challenging the remission. On March 27, a division Bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna issued a notice to the Gujarat government and the Union Home Ministry, requesting the files related to the premature release of the 11 convicts for examination.
However, both the Union Home Ministry and the Gujarat government showed reluctance to share the files and indicated that they might seek a review of the court’s order. On April 18, when the Union Home Ministry and the Gujarat government claimed privilege over the remission documents, Justices Joseph and Nagarathna, presiding over the matter stated that the authorities were in contempt of the court’s March 27 order for not disclosing the files as directed.
Justice Joseph questioned the grounds on which the remission was granted, inquiring whether there was proper consideration before reaching the decision.
Now, the SC has fixed August 7 for final disposal of all the pleas in this case.
Also Read: From Buzzword To Reality: How AI Is Powering Innovation
