A special three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court sought a response from the Gujarat government on a petition challenging the remission granted by the State to 11 life convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case.

Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, who led the Bench, also directed the petitioners to implead the 11 convicts as respondents in the case.

Issuing notice, the Bench asked the State to file its reply and posted the case after two weeks.

The petition challenging the release of the convicts on August 15 was filed by CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali, independent journalist and filmmaker Revati Laul, and former philosophy professor and activist Roop Rekh Varma.

“Fourteen people were killed; a pregnant woman and several other women were raped; a three-year-old child had her head smashed to the ground. The accused were identified… We are asking in these circumstances what is the judicial review of the court in the context of remission,” senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioners, asked the bench also comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath.

Sibal said the petitioners are seeking the court to re-examine the remission records and see if there was any application of mind by the State.

Justice Rastogi said the convicts were convicted for their crime and the question here was the relevant scheme under which the remission was granted.

The Gujarat government had relied on its remission policy of 1992 to approve the convicts' applications for remission of their sentences and not the current policy of 2014.

In May 2022, the apex court had directed the Gujarat government to consider the application of one of the convicts, Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil, for premature release in terms of its remission policy of July 9, 1992. The 1992 policy was prevalent on the date of conviction.

The Supreme Court has followed its judgment in State of Haryana versus Jagdish, which had held that the policy applicable at the time of conviction must be considered for deciding an application for pre-mature release.

In its May 13 judgment, the court had concluded that Gujarat was the "appropriate government" under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to decide the remission of the convicts in the case.

Related Topics