Bilkis Bano moves Supreme Court challenging release of 11 rape convicts

Bilkis Bano has moved the Supreme Court seeking a review against the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in May 2022 which held that Gujarat Government has the jurisdiction to decide the remission plea of the convicts although the trial was held in Maharashtra.

In her petition, she has stated that she was not even made party respondent by the accused persons in the writ petition and that this was the reason that she had absolutely no information of the filing or pendency of the said writ petition or the order passed therein by the Top Court till the writ petitioner and other 10 co-convicts/prisoners were prematurely released on 15.08.2022.

She has submitted that the accused persons concealed important documents/ material from the Supreme Court which are very necessary for proper adjudication of the review petition and issue in hand, the present petitioner would therefore be filing an application seeking permission to bring on record additional facts and documents.

She has stated that the accused persons remained absolutely silent and did not disclose the egregious nature of the crime for which the writ petitioner and his co-accused were convicted by the Trial Court, High Court and the Top Court, which is nothing less than deliberately playing fraud upon the Apex Court with an intention to mislead.

She has further alleged that the accused persons have concealed the facts of interference by the Supreme Court in this case at a very initial stage when the criminal case was closed by the State Investigating Agency and the trial court concerned on the ground that the accused are not traceable.

“The matter was reopened only due to intervention of this Hon'ble Court at that stage. The Central Bureau of Investigation was directed by this Hon’ble Court to conduct the investigation afresh. It is only thereafter the accused could be brought to book, extremely shocking facts were revealed showing deliberate acts by the concerned police officials and the doctors to frustrate the investigation and the evidence, charge-sheet was filed which finally resulted into conviction of all the 11 accused,” the plea read.

She has stated that the accused persons have very cleverly hidden the name of the victim i.e. Bilkis Bano who is alive. She also stated that the accused persons did not challenge the order of the Gujarat High Court that dismissed their Writ petition holding that their case for remission can only be considered by the State of Maharashtra and not by the State of Gujarat as he was convicted by the Court of State of Maharashtra.

“The writ petitioner has kept in dark and deliberately concealed from this Hon’ble Court that vide order dated 13.03.2020 the Gujarat High Court again rejected the application of the writ petitioner for remission with a specific observation that the appropriate government to exercise the powers of remission would be the State of Maharashtra and not the State of Gujarat,” the plea read.

She has stated in the Review Petition that it is a settled principle of law that no writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India would lie against a judicial order, as held by the nine judges’ bench of the Supreme Court in ‘Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar (1966) 3 SCR 744’ and therefore no writ petition would be maintainable against order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat.

She said that the Supreme Court has consistently taken a view that the test to determine the appropriate government is to locate the State where the accused was convicted and sentenced and not the State where the crime was committed or the accused belongs too. State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ratan Singh (2 Judges Bench) [1976 (3) SCC 470], squarely applies to the facts of the present case, she has said.

It is her contention that while passing the order, the Supreme Court missed out to notice that for the purpose of deciding that which government would be the ‘Appropriate Government’ having jurisdiction/ authority to exercise power of remission u/s 432/433/433-A CrPC, it is of no relevance that in which State the crime was committed. What is relevant is that in which State the offenders have been convicted, her plea stated.

On the above mentioned grounds, she has moved the Supreme Court in a Review Petition.