Unraveling the Bilkis Bano Gangrape Case: Supreme Court Strikes Down Gujarat’s Premature Release Decision

Introduction

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court recently intervened in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case, nullifying the Gujarat government’s controversial move to grant premature release to eleven convicts. The court, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, unequivocally asserted that the power to pass remission orders rested with the government of the state where the trial occurred – in this instance, Maharashtra, not Gujarat.

The Quashed Decision

The convicts, including individuals like Jaswant Nai, Govind Nai, and Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah, were released by the Gujarat government, prompting the Supreme Court to intervene. The court, in no uncertain terms, declared that Gujarat lacked the authority to pass remission orders, emphasizing that the state under which the convict was tried and sentenced held that power.

Fraudulent Tactics Exposed

The Supreme Court, in a scathing rebuke, called out one convict, Radhyesham, for deceptive practices that led to a favorable order in May 2022. The court declared the judgment obtained through fraud as null and void, highlighting the need for transparent proceedings and adherence to legal principles.

Gujarat Government’s Complicity

Notably, the court did not spare the Gujarat government, accusing it of complicity and acting in concert with the convicts. The failure to file a review plea against the May 2022 judgment, coupled with the usurpation of the Maharashtra government’s jurisdiction, drew strong censure from the apex court.

Upholding the Rule of Law

In a resounding statement, the Supreme Court emphasized the paramount importance of the rule of law. The court held that the liberty of the convicts must be subordinate to the rule of law, citing the need for justice to be dispensed without arbitrariness.

Return to Incarceration

Addressing the conundrum of sending the convicts back to jail, the court asserted that the rule of law must prevail. The bench, comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, unequivocally directed all eleven convicts to report to jail authorities within two weeks.

Legal Background

The judgment emanated from a series of petitions challenging the remission granted to the convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case. The convicts, responsible for the heinous crimes during the riots, were released based on the Gujarat government’s application of remission policy, despite the trial taking place in Maharashtra.

Unraveling the Deception

Examining the events leading to the release, the Supreme Court highlighted the deceptive tactics employed by one convict (respondent no. 3). The court underscored that the May 2022 judgment originated from an Article 32 petition filed by the convict after the Gujarat High Court dismissed his plea, emphasizing the need for transparency in legal proceedings.

Legal Consequences

The Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, declared the May 2022 judgment non est in law, emphasizing that fraud had tainted the legal process. This revelation further underscores the need for integrity and adherence to legal norms in obtaining favorable court orders.

Gujarat Government’s Justification

The Gujarat government’s decision to release the convicts was purportedly based on factors such as the completion of 14 years in jail, age, nature of the crime, and behavior in prison. However, the court’s intervention exposes the inherent flaws in the decision-making process.

Conclusion

In concluding this exposé on the Supreme Court’s intervention in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case, it becomes evident that the judiciary has played a pivotal role in upholding the sanctity of legal processes. The quashing of Gujarat’s premature release decision serves as a beacon for the importance of transparency, integrity, and adherence to the rule of law in the pursuit of justice.