Read Time: 09 minutes
The convicts had submitted before court that upon grant of remission, they were released and enjoying liberty, and it was connected to their right of personal liberty which could not be curtailed by way of a Article 32 petition
The Supreme Court today started hearing the rejoinder submissions on behalf of Bilkis Bano and the different PIL petitioners in the pleas challenging the remission granted to 11 convicts who had gangraped Bano in Gujarat in 2002.
Advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for Bano, submitted that the government while granting remission did not consider the precedent that its decision would set.
"A child was smashed on a stone, a pregnant woman gangraped, her mother gangraped, it is a gruesome barbaric act..this is not a case where remission should be granted..I plead on facts that this is not a case for remission..government has been completely negligent of the impact on the society, what precedent value it would set...", a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was told.
Court was further told that the incident was not a spur of the moment thing.
"..unless somebody was following me and bloodthirsty..High Court noted that the accused were searching for Muslims, their blood was boiling..this is the judicial notice of the facts..", Gupta added.
A further submission was made that the opinion of the presiding judge of Maharashtra court had not been considered by the Gujarat government.
The private respondents/convicts in the case recently concluded their submissions in favour of the remission granted to them by the State of Gujarat. Notably, one of the convicts told the bench that a case where remission was granted, the only judicial review available was under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
"An erroneous order cannot be challenged under Article 32, only an illegal order can be challenged..", the counsel had added.
In August, Gupta had told the Supreme Court that convicts had chased Bano with a "bloodthirsty approach" to hunt Muslims and kill them.
Top Court was further told that the CBI had opposed premature release of the convicts submitting that the crime was of such a nature that it could not be pardoned.
In July, the court had started hearing the final arguments in all pleas filed against the remission granted to 11 convicts. On July 17, it had recorded that a publication had been effected on June 1, 2023 to intimate all the respondents and an affidavit in that regard has been submitted.
Supreme Court on March 27, 2023 had issued notice in all the Public Interest petitions filed against the remission order as also the petition filed by Bano herself, who was represented by Advocate Gupta.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had constituted a bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagaratha to hear the petition filed by rape survivor Bilkis Bano, challenging the remission granted to 11 convicts.
This was done two days after the CJI had said that he would appoint a special bench to hear the petition, after the same was mentioned before him by Advocate Shobha Gupta.
In December last year Justice Bela M. Trivedi of the Supreme Court had recused from hearing the petition by Bano, and the bench also comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi had therefore adjourned the case by Bano 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.
On August 16, 2022 all 11 life imprisonment convicts in the 2002 post-Godhra Bilkis Bano gang-rape case of Gujarat were released from the Godhra sub-jail after a state government panel approved their application for remission of sentence.
In her petition, Bano stated that she was not even made party respondent by the accused persons in the writ petition concerning remission 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 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.
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs. Union of India & Ors.
Please Login or Register
