New Supreme Court bench to hear Bilkis Bano’s plea on Mar 27
A new bench in the Supreme Court, comprising justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, will hear on March 27 a clutch of petitions against the Gujarat government’s decision to grant remission to 11 people convicted and sentenced to a life term for gang-raping Bilkis Bano and murdering her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots.
A new bench in the Supreme Court, comprising justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, will hear on March 27 a clutch of petitions against the Gujarat government’s decision to grant remission to 11 people convicted and sentenced to a life term for gang-raping Bilkis Bano and murdering her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The bench will take up a bunch of six petitions challenging the remission -- while one of these petitions was moved by Bano, others were filed as public interest litigation (PILs) in the wake of the outcry over the premature release of the convicts last August.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud on Wednesday agreed to consider setting up a new bench as Bano’s lawyer pointed out that the matter was not heard since December after one of the judges on the designated bench recused herself from the case. Under the Supreme Court rules, it is the CJI’s prerogative, as the master of the roster, to assign cases to different benches.
Also read: SC to hear 14 Oppn parties’ plea over ED, CBI ‘misuse’ on April 5
The cases were earlier being heard by a bench led by justice Ajay Rastogi. Justice Bela M Trivedi, who is the other judge on this bench, on December 13 recused herself from hearing the Bano’s petition, following which justice Rastogi said that he would have to take up the matter in a different composition.
On January 4, justice Trivedi again conveyed her indisposition to hear a clutch of PILs filed separately by former CPI MP Subhashini Ali, journalist Revati Laul, professor Roop Rekha Verma, and TMC MP Mahua Moitra, challenging the premature release of Bano’s convicts. On that day, the case was adjourned with a brief order for listing it before a bench of which justice Trivedi is not a part.
The petitions, however, did not get listed after January 4.
Bano was 21 years old and five months’ pregnant when she was gang-raped while fleeing the violence during the 2002 riots, and her three-year-old daughter was one of the seven people killed.
The 11 men convicted of the crimes against her and her family were released on August 15 after one of them, Radheshyam Shah, approached the Supreme Court in April seeking remission, arguing that he had spent over 15 years in prison in the case. By an order in May, a bench led by justice Rastogi directed the state government to consider the convicts’ plea for premature release in accordance with the 1992 policy – the one prevalent on the date of their conviction. While the existing remission policy of 2014 of the Gujarat government prohibits early release of rape convicts, no such restrictions were a part of the 1992 policy.
Subsequently, a batch of PILs led by Ali was moved before the top court, emphasising that the crime was horrific and the convicts should have never been entitled to premature release in the public interest. A bench led by then CJI NV Ramana issued notices to the Gujarat government and the convicts in August 2022. As this bench also included justices Rastogi and Vikram Nath, the matter was listed before justice Rastogi’s bench after justice Ramana’s retirement.
Replying to these petitions, the Gujarat government filed its affidavit on October 17, and disclosed that the Union ministry of home affairs had approved the early release of the convicts while the state took into account their “good behaviour” as a key reason to grant remission.
The affidavit revealed that remission was granted in August despite objections from the trial court judge who convicted the 11 men, and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which investigated and prosecuted the case in Mumbai following the 2004 apex court order shifting the trial outside Gujarat.
Later, in the last week of November, Bano approached the Supreme Court against the Gujarat government’s decision to allow the 11 men, sentenced to life in 2008, to walk out of jail.
Also read: SC tells forest expert panel not to act as ‘appellate’ authority over its orders
She stated in her writ petition that the gravity of the crime would itself disentitle the convicts from getting benefit of an early release. Explaining the delay in approaching the court, she said, “The petitioner was completely shattered with the early release of all the convicts and could not regroup herself to be able to take a decision to challenge their release the earliest, more so when there was not even a piece of information of the basis or the grounds on which they were collectively granted such clemency.”
Through a separate petition, Bano also sought a review of the Supreme Court’s May order asking the state government to consider the convicts’ plea for premature release in accordance with the 1992 policy.
While Bano’s challenge to the grant of remission remains pending, the review petition was rejected by a bench comprising justices Rastogi and Vikram Nath on December 13. “In our opinion, there appears no error apparent on the face of record, which may call for review of the judgment dated May 13, 2022,” the bench said in its order.
