Read Time: 06 minutes
"We wish to emphasize that in the instant case rule of law must prevail. If ultimately rule of law is to prevail and the impugned orders of remission are set-aside by us, then the natural consequences must follow. Therefore, respondent Nos.3 to 13 are directed to report to the concerned jail authorities within two weeks from today", the judgment adds
A person is entitled to protection of his liberty only in accordance with law, the Supreme Court has held today while setting aside the remission granted to 11 convicts who had gangraped Bilkis Bano in Gujarat in 2002.
"When a person’s liberty cannot be violated in breach of a law, can a person’s liberty be protected even in the face of a breach or violation of law? In other words, should rule of law prevail over personal liberty of a person or vice-versa? Further, should this Court weigh in favour of a person’s freedom and liberty even when it has been established that the same was granted in violation of law? Should the scales of justice tilt against rule of law?..", the Supreme Court has questioned in its 251-page judgment.
Court in the present case, where the convicts were granted liberty and released from imprisonment by virtue of the impugned orders of remission, declared and quashed them for being wholly without jurisdiction and non est.
"Courts have to be mindful of not only the spelling of the word “justice” but also the content of the concept. Courts have to dispense justice and not justice being dispensed with. In fact, the strength and authority of courts in India are because they are involved in dispensing justice. It should be their life aim...", a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan added.
With this view, the bench refused to grant further liberty to the convicts and consider their arguments with an emotional appeal.
"One cannot lose sight of the fact that the said respondents were all in prison for a little over fourteen years (with liberal paroles and furloughs granted to them from time to time). They had lost their right to liberty once they were convicted and were imprisoned. But, they were released pursuant to the impugned remission orders which have been quashed by us. Consequently, the status quo ante must be restored.", it added.
In October last year, Supreme Court had reserved its judgment in the pleas filed by Bilkis Bano and different PIL petitioners challenging the remission granted to 11 convicts who had gangraped Bano in Gujarat in 2002.
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
