Big victory for Bilkis Bano in Supreme Court, order of release of all 11 convicts canceled

The Supreme Court has given a major verdict on the petitions filed against the Gujarat government’s decision allowing early release of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case. The court has canceled the order of release of the culprits. The Supreme Court has considered the petitions challenging the sentence in this case worthy of hearing. In this case Justice B.V. A special bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice Ujjwal Bhuyan delivered the verdict. The court delivered its verdict after hearing all parties on the question of legality of the Gujarat government’s action of releasing the 11 convicts under the state’s immunity policy on August 15, 2022, in October 2023. Kept it safe.

What did the Supreme Court say in Bilkis Bano case?
While delivering the verdict, Justice Nagarathna said that Plato had said that punishment is not for vengeance but for reformation. In the curative theory, punishment is compared to medicine; if a criminal can be cured, he should be freed. This is the basis of corrective theory. But victim’s rights are also important. Women deserve respect. Can immunity be given in heinous crimes against women? These are the issues that arise.

Justice Nagarathna said, we proceed to consider the writ petitions both on merits and maintainability. After listening to both the sides in this case, following things emerge:1. Is the petition filed by the victim under Section 32 maintainable?2. Are PILs questioning the exemption order admissible?3. Was the Gujarat government able to pass the exemption order?4. Was the order for remission given to the culprits as per law?

The Supreme Court accepted that the petitions challenging the remission of sentence of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case are hearable. The Supreme Court refused to answer regarding the maintainability of PILs because Bilkis Bano’s petition had already been considered maintainable.

Justice Nagarathna has quoted George Bernard Shaw and said, people do not improve by stumbling. Justice Nagarathna said that the place of occurrence of the crime and the place of imprisonment are not relevant considerations. Where the criminal is prosecuted and sentenced is true government. Emphasis is placed on the place of trial rather than the place where the crime was committed.

The Supreme Court holds that the May 13, 2022 judgment (which had directed the Gujarat government to consider pardoning the convict) was obtained “by playing fraud” on the court and concealing material facts. In the Bilkis Bano case, the Supreme Court held that the State, where a criminal is tried and sentenced, is competent to decide on the pardon petition of the convicts. The Supreme Court believes that the State of Gujarat is not competent to pass the order for remission of sentence of the culprits, but the Government of Maharashtra is competent.

In the Bilkis Bano case, the Supreme Court held that the Gujarat State Government was not competent to pass orders commuting the sentence of the convicts. Justice Nagarathna said, on this basis alone (the Gujarat government lacks capacity), the writ petitions should be allowed and the orders should be quashed.

Opposition leaders filed petition
During the hearing, the Centre, Gujarat government and the convicts opposed the PILs filed by CPI-M leader Subhashini Ali, Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra, National Federation of Indian Women, Asma Shafiq Shaikh and others against the order of commutation of sentence, saying It was held that when the victim herself has approached the court, others cannot be allowed to interfere in the matter.

The culprits gave this argument
Also, the convicts had argued that the pardon orders granting them early release have the essence of a judicial order and cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. On the other hand, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for a PIL plaintiff, had argued that the exemption orders were ‘bad in law’ and the crime committed against Bano during the 2002 riots was based on religion.” It was a crime against humanity. Jaisingh had said that the voice of conscience of the country will be reflected in the decision of the apex court.