The Supreme Court will deliver on Monday, January 8, its verdict on a clutch of petitions filed against the Gujarat government’s decision, which allowed early release of convicts in the gang rape of Bilkis Bano and the murder of her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots. As per the causelist published on the website of the apex court, a special bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan will pronounce the judgment on January 8.
In October 2023, the top court reserved its verdict after hearing all the parties, on the question of validity of the Gujarat government's action releasing 11 convicts under the state's remission policy on August 15, 2022. During the hearing, the Gujarat, Union governments and the convicts had opposed the public interest litigations (PILs) filed by CPI-M leader Subhashini Ali, Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra, the National Federation of Indian Women, Asma Shafique Shaikh and others against the remission orders.
The convicts’ claim was that once the survivor herself has approached the court, others may not be allowed to intervene in a criminal matter. They also argued that remission orders granting them early release have an essence of judicial order and cannot be challenged by way of filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
On the other hand, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for a PIL litigant, contended that the remission orders are ‘bad in law’ and crime committed against Bano during the 2002 riots was a “crime against humanity” perpetrated on the basis of religion. Indira said the nation’s conscience will be reflected in the verdict of the apex court. The petitioner side also pointed out before the Supreme Court that the convicts did not pay the fines imposed on them and that the non-payment of fine renders their remission order illegal.
When the final hearing was underway in the case, the convicts approached the trial court in Mumbai and deposited the fine imposed upon them to “reduce the controversy.”
The top court had questioned the deposition of the fine without awaiting the outcome of their applications filed before the top court. It had asked convicts: “You seek permission and then you deposit without getting permission?”