Today(on 18th March),a convict implicated in the Bilkis Bano case has submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court, contesting a January 8th judgment that invalidated the early release granted by the Gujarat government.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 18th March),Ramesh Chandana, a convicted in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case, has taken a step by approaching the Supreme Court to challenge a landmark judgment dated January 8. This particular judgment had previously annulled the early release (remission) that was granted by the Gujarat government to him and other convicts involved in the case.
Represented by advocate Pashupati Nath Razdan, Chandana has raised substantial legal questions, challenging the Supreme Court’s authority to overturn a decision made by another division bench.
On 8th January, decision by Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan. They determined that the appropriate remission policy for the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case was that of Maharashtra, where the trial was conducted, rather than Gujarat’s. This interpretation effectively stripped the State of Gujarat of the power to apply its remission policy to the case’s convicts, a decision that has now been put under the microscope by Chandana.
ALSO READ: Bilkis Bano Case: SC Reserves Judgment on 11 Convicts’ Release Challenge
Chandana’s plea poignantly questions:
“Whether the mere transfer of the case from Gujarat would result in the parties being deprived of the advantageous policy of Gujarat, where eligibility for remission is set at 14 years, favoring the petitioner, compared to Maharashtra’s policy requiring 28 years, which is prejudicial to him?”
Furthermore, the convict’s review petition sheds light on a Supreme Court judgment from May 2022, which initially facilitated the early release of the convicts. This earlier judgment asserted that remission applications should align with the policy of the state where the crime occurred, in this case, Gujarat, not the trial location. However, the January 8 judgment later determined that this 2022 ruling did not hold binding force, as the convict who sought relief, Radheshyam Bhagwandas, had not disclosed all material facts.
Chandana’s current legal challenge also delves into the principles of judicial consistency, querying-
“Whether the overruling of judgment dated 13.05.2022 of a coordinate Bench passed by this Hon’ble Court … vide the impugned order is in contravention of the doctrine of comity of Courts?”
The Gujarat government has also entered the fray, filing its own review petition against the January 8 judgment. The state’s plea particularly criticizes the Supreme Court’s remarks suggesting that the Gujarat government was “acting in tandem and was complicit with accused,” arguing that these comments have unjustly prejudiced the state.