Bilkis Bano Case : One Convict Untraceable, Say Petitioners; Supreme Court Directs Publication Of Notice In Newspaper

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday adjourned to July 11, the hearing in a set of pleas against the premature release of the life convicts in the Bilkis Bano case. In light of the petitioners' submission that one of the respondents could not be found to complete the service of notice, the bench directed steps to be taken to serve him with a fresh notice, and to publish a public notice in two daily Gujarati newspapers. A bench of Justices KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to the 11 convicts who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders and the gangrape during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat. Last year, on Independence Day, the convicts were allowed to walk free after their application for remission of the sentence was approved by the state government.On the last day, the bench was compelled to adjourn the hearing to July, when the top court will reopen after its annual summer vacation. The hearing could not move forward since the counsel for two of the convicts alleged that there were discrepancies in Bano’s affidavit on service of notice. They accused Bano of playing 'fraud' with the court, claiming that she had indicated in her affidavit that the respondents had refused to accept the notice, even though they were allegedly out of town. This, the counsel for the petitioners said, was nothing but delay tactics to 'interrupt' justice. "We understand you do not want this bench to hear the matter," Justice Joseph plainly stated, referring to his imminent retirement on June 16. The Supreme Court judge is set to demit office in June, but his last working day will be on Friday, May 19. Nevertheless, the bench agreed to direct the matter to be posted to be heard after the summer break. On Tuesday, the batch of petitioners was taken up only to ascertain service of notice, as indicated by the bench on the last date. The apex court was informed that Pradip Ramanlal Modhia, one of the 11 convicts who were released last year and a resident of Gujarat's Dahod district, could not be traced and served with the notice in the petition filed by Bilkis Bano herself. Advocate Shobha Gupta vigorously asserted that the service of notice should be deemed to be complete, as against the missing respondent. "Gujarat police cooperated fully. Service was supposed to be done at his house. His house was locked and his phone was switched off. He picked up a call once but then the phone was switched off. A copy of the notice was sent on WhatsApp, and another was pasted visibly on the main door of his house. This was his ordinary place of residence. His brother and nephew refused to accept the notice, saying that they did not know anything about the convict. Despite the best efforts of the Gujarat police, service could not be completed. The whole world knows this case is going on.""This conduct is worrying," said Gupta, "If tomorrow, the remission is set aside and they are directed to be sent back to jail? Will the convict be available then?" She urged the court to direct the convicts to report to the concerned police station every week. For the purpose of service of notice, she requested the bench to invoke Order 53 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, which allows the top court to direct the issuance of an arrest warrant to compel the appearance of an accused in criminal proceedings."Which is the other method?" asked Justice Joseph. Answering the question, Gupta pointed out that in response to a situation like the present, the court could also direct a public notice to be issued. The bench also inquired whether the counsel who appeared for the said respondent in the connected petitions was present in court. When advocate-on-record Vishnu Kant stepped up to the podium, Justice Joseph asked him, "Will you be able to accept the notice?"The counsel replied, "We communicate through the local counsel, who is currently in America. I have no instructions, either from the counsel, or from the client. The client's phone is switched off.""So you do not intend to file a counter-affidavit?" Justice Joseph asked. "I will take instructions from the local counsel," the advocate-on-record answered. Justice Joseph exclaimed, "The entirety of the proceedings is being held up because of your client."Gupta interjected, "This court has come down heavily on lawyers appearing as name lenders...Not taking any responsibility for the proceedings, nor their clients." When the respondent is before this court in a connected matter, through the counsel, how can the counsel then say he is not representing his client, Gupta asked. "We cannot compel the counsel to accept notice," Justice Joseph said, firmly. Interestingly, in this context, Justice Nagarathna posed the question as to whether an AoR could appear in one matter for a client, and in another for the same client, take a different view. "We want to be enlightened...

Bilkis Bano Case : One Convict Untraceable, Say Petitioners; Supreme Court Directs Publication Of Notice In Newspaper

Awstika Das

Tags