Supreme Court Deliberates on Bilkis Bano Case: A Detailed Overview
The Supreme Court, in a recent hearing, delved into the contentious issue surrounding the decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to the 11 convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for their roles in the 2002 Gujarat communal riots. These convicts were involved in multiple murders and a violent sexual assault during the riots. Notably, they were released on Independence Day last year after their remission application was approved by the state government.
Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, representing the convicts, argued that the remission of Bilkis Bano’s assailants was in line with a prior Supreme Court decision. He stated,
“This issue was resolved by this court. Your Lordships cannot and should not sit in judgment over a coordinate bench’s decision.”
Malhotra emphasized that the remission orders had already attained finality and were beyond questioning in a proceeding before a coordinate bench.
However, this argument was met with skepticism by the bench. Justice BV Nagarathna clarified,
“The decision of this court was the starting point to that (remission). A review was filed and dismissed, but that is different from a challenge against remission orders. The two causes of action are different… But this is the end point.”
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan added,
“We are not sitting in judgment over a coordinate bench’s ruling. This is on remission order. The cause of action is different. This is very clear to us.”
In a surprising revelation during the hearing, it was disclosed that one of the convicts, Radheshyam Shah, had resumed his practice as a motor accidents claims lawyer after his release. This prompted Justice Bhuyan to remark,
“Law is supposed to be a noble profession,”
raising questions about the appropriateness of a convict practicing law.
Advocate Sonia Mathur, representing another convict, Vipin Joshi, argued that the convicts had rightfully earned their remission through good behavior. She stated,
“This is not given to convict as a bounty, as charity. He has earned [the remission]. Today, even if there are flaws noticed in the process, that’s for the State to answer.”
Bilkis Bano’s lawyer, Advocate Shobha Gupta, had previously emphasized the gravity of the crimes committed by the convicts, highlighting the brutality and religious hatred that marked their actions. She poignantly asked,
“…Bilkis saw her first child’s head being smashed on a stone… Are these people – the perpetrators who have been found guilty of committing these crimes – deserving of the leniency shown to them?”
The case has garnered significant attention, with several petitions filed challenging the Gujarat government’s decision. Among the petitioners are notable figures like Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Subhashini Ali, journalist Revati Laul, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, and others. The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter is eagerly awaited, given the profound implications it holds for the justice system and societal values.