Supreme Court Probes Delay in Fine Payment by Convicts in Bilkis Bano Case
In a recent development concerning the Bilkis Bano gangrape case, the Supreme Court has sought clarification from the 11 convicts who were released on remission. The apex court questioned if their alleged delay in depositing the fines, which were part of their sentences, influenced their early release. This inquiry was initiated after the court was informed that all the convicts had settled their fines this week in a Mumbai court.
Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, part of the bench overseeing the case, raised concerns about the timing of the convicts’ payments. This comes after petitioners, including Bilkis Bano, argued that the convicts’ failure to pay the fines should result in an additional one-year sentence. The fines, amounting to ₹2,000 for each convict, were imposed for their involvement in 14 murders and three rapes during the 2002 Gujarat riots. Non-payment would lead to an additional 34 years of imprisonment for all convicts combined. Bano and other public interest litigation (PIL) litigants have emphasized that this period should be served before any consideration of remission.
The bench remarked,
“Do you apprehend this has a bearing on your remission. This is an act which is sub-judice (an act done when a matter is pending consideration before the Court).”
Two convicts had previously sought the Supreme Court’s permission on August 28 to deposit the fines. The court responded,
“You have asked for our permission and without obtaining it, you have deposited the fine.”
The convicts’ applications stated their remorse for the events that led to their life sentences. After serving 14 years, their remission pleas were processed last year, following a Supreme Court judgment in May 2022. This judgment, concerning convict Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah, directed the Gujarat government to decide on his remission plea based on a 1992 policy, which was in effect at the time of their conviction.
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing one of the convicts, clarified,
“This will have no bearing on the issue of remission. I advised them it will be appropriate to do so as the matter is before the top court and this part of the controversy (surrounding remission) as argued by the petitioners will not survive.”
Luthra further emphasized that the concept of remission is rooted in the idea of reforming prisoners. He argued that life sentences are grounded in the reformative policy of the criminal justice system, while death sentences serve as deterrents.
Luthra provided the court with receipts confirming the fines’ payment by the 11 convicts on August 31 and shared a copy with Bano’s lawyer, Shobha Gupta. The hearing has been adjourned to September 14.
To recap, Bilkis Bano was 21 and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped during the 2002 Gujarat riots. Seven of her family members, including her three-year-old daughter, were killed. The convicts’ release in August last year ignited public outrage, leading to several petitions filed in the Supreme Court. Among the petitioners were Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and former CPI member Subhashini Ali. Bano herself approached the top court in November 2022, challenging the remission granted to her assailants.
