Bilkis Bano Case | Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on Pleas Challenging Premature Release of 11 Convicts; Asks Centre, Gujarat To Produce Records

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a clutch of pleas against the decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to 11 convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders and gang rapes, including that of Bilkis Bano, during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat. Last year, on Independence Day, the life convicts were allowed to walk free, sparking widespread controversy.After an 11-day-long hearing that began in August, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan reserved its judgment today. Besides this, the court directed the Gujarat and union governments to submit original records available with them. It pronounced -"We have heard learned senior counsel and learned counsel for petitioners insofar as reply arguments are concerned. We have asked learned counsel for the State of Gujarat to submit the original records. It is submitted that original records are in Gujarati. Therefore, English translations would also be furnished along with original records by Monday. The Union of India is also to submit original records on Monday. Judgment reserved."Advocate Shobha Gupta appeared for Bilkis, the rape survivor, while Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, and advocates Vrinda Grover, Aparna Bhat, Nizamuddin Pasha, and Pratik R Bombarde represented various public interest litigants. Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju appeared for both the State of Gujarat and the Union of India. The now-released convicts were represented by Senior advocates Sidharth Luthra, Rishi Malhotra, S Guru Krishnakumar, Advocate Sonia Mathur, and others.What did Bilkis Bano and other petitioners say about premature release of the 11 convicts?Bano’s lawyer, Advocate Shobha Gupta argued that the punishment imposed on Bilkis’ rapists ought to be proportional to the nature and seriousness of the crime they were had committed – which included 14 murders and three gang-rapes. Highlighting the brutality of the crimes and the religious hatred motivating it, Gupta asked the Supreme Court bench if the convicts deserved the leniency they have been accorded:“…Bilkis saw her first child’s head being smashed on a stone. She kept pleading to the attackers because she was from the same locality as them. That is why she could name them. She knew them because they were from the locality. But they showed her or her family no mercy…Are these people – the perpetrators who have been found guilty of committing these crimes – deserving of the leniency shown to them?”Besides this, Gupta contended that the government did not consider the societal impact of prematurely releasing Bilkis Bano’s rapists, nor did it consider a host of other relevant factors that they were required to under the law. Flagging the 'leniency' the Gujarat government demonstrated towards the convicts, yesterday while delivering a rejoinder, Gupta said, "This barbaric crime has left an indelible mark on Bilkis. Therefore, this is not a case where the convicts deserve mercy. The convicts should be sent back. I'm beseeching this court with folded hands to send them back where they have come from."Before Bilkis Bano herself approached the top court, a number of petitions had been filed in public interest, challenging the Gujarat government’s decision. The list of petitioners include Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Subhashini Ali, professor Rooplekha Verma, journalist Revati Laul, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, former IPS officer Meeran Chadha Borwankar, and National Federation of Indian Women. However, the government, as well as the convicts challenged the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by politicians, activists, and journalists saying that they do not have locus standi. The respondents argued that the grant of remission fell within the domain of criminal law, which did not countenance ‘unnecessary interference’ by third-party ‘interlopers’.Jaising, Bhat, Grover, and Pasha resisted the challenge to the maintainability of the PIL petitions, defending the petitioners’ right to bring an action in the case. On multiple grounds, they also mounted an attack on the legality of the Gujarat government’s decision. Besides pointing to the heinous, barbaric, and communally-motivated nature of the offences committed by the 11 men, the lawyers, inter alia, cited the proportionality of crime and punishment, the state government's failure to consider relevant factors and to comply with constitutional principles dealing with remission, an 'arbitrary', 'mala fide' and 'partisan' exercise of the remission-granting power by the state government, an unserved penalty sentence resulting out of the non-payment of fines, and the lack of remorse demonstrated by the convicts. Urging the court to set aside the remission orders, Jaising told the court today, "The conscience of nation is reflected in the three organs of the State, and therefore, the judgment this court will render will be a reflection of the conscience of the nation."What did the union and...

Bilkis Bano Case | Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on Pleas Challenging Premature Release of 11 Convicts; Asks Centre, Gujarat To Produce Records

Awstika Das

Tags