The Supreme Court’s bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan, highlighted the ‘usurpation of power’ and ‘abuse of discretion’ by the Gujarat government in its decision to release the convicts. Gujarat government seeks to have certain adverse comments expunged from the Supreme Court’s judgment, the legal community and the public await further developments.
Bilkis Bano case: The Gujarat government has approached the Supreme Court with a review petition. This petition seeks the removal of certain remarks made by the apex court, which criticized the state government’s conduct regarding the premature release of 11 convicts. These convicts were implicated in the heinous crimes of multiple murders and gang rape during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, marking a dark chapter in the state’s history.
Also Read- Eleven Convicts In Bilkis Bano Case Surrender Following Supreme Court Deadline (lawchakra.in)
In January, the Supreme Court criticized the Gujarat government for its collaboration with a convict in the Bilkis Bano case, as it annulled the release of 11 convicts. The Court had earlier, in response to the convict’s writ petition, designated the State of Gujarat as the appropriate authority to evaluate the plea for premature release, leading to the subsequent release of all 11 individuals serving life sentences.
The Gujarat government’s contention rests on the Supreme Court’s May 2022 judgment, which directed it to consider the remission application of one of the convicts. The state argues that its actions were in compliance with this directive and thus, it should not be accused of “usurping” the jurisdiction of the State of Maharashtra. This assertion comes in the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s January ruling, which set aside the remission granted to the 11 life-termers, citing the State of Gujarat was not the ‘appropriate government’ to decide on their remission pleas.
The Supreme Court’s bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan, highlighted the ‘usurpation of power’ and ‘abuse of discretion’ by the Gujarat government in its decision to release the convicts. This decision was deemed a nullity, influenced by fraud and misrepresentation by one of the convicts, Radheshyam Shah, thereby violating the principles of law and justice.
Justice Nagarathna’s observations pointed out the Gujarat government’s failure to file a review petition that could have clarified its position as not being the appropriate government for considering the remission plea. This omission led to a series of legal and procedural missteps, culminating in the premature release of the convicts, an action now criticized for breaching the rule of law and aiding the convicts unjustly.
The Supreme Court’s directive for the convicts to surrender underscores the principle that the rule of law must prevail, ensuring that justice is served in accordance with legal standards and ethical considerations. This case, Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors., has not only captivated public attention but also highlighted the intricate legal battles fought in the pursuit of justice and accountability.
As the Gujarat government seeks to have certain adverse comments expunged from the Supreme Court’s judgment, the legal community and the public await further developments. This review petition represents a critical juncture in the case, potentially influencing the narrative around the state’s role and responsibilities in handling sensitive and high-profile criminal cases. The outcome of this petition could have far-reaching implications for the legal precedents governing state actions, remission policies, and the broader discourse on justice and human rights in India.
CASE DETAILS:
Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
Also Read-Bilkis Bano Case: Supreme Court Petitioned For Surrender Extension By 3 Convicts (lawchakra.in)
