The Supreme Court questioned how a writ petition filed under Article 32 by a convict in the Bilkis Bano rape case seeking remission of his sentence be entertained by them after the relief was rejected by the Gujarat Court.
A Bench comprising of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan questioned in reference to a decision by another Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nathin May 2022.
Justices Rastogi and Justice Nath on May 13 last year, had ruled that the remission of the convicts in the case should be considered as per the policy existing at the time of conviction in the State where the crime was actually committed.
That ruling was passed after considering an Article 32 petition filed by one of the convicts in the case, Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah alias Lala Vakil, who had urged the Court to direct the Gujarat government to consider his application for premature release under a 1992 policy, which existed at the time of his conviction.
A petition was filed before the Gujarat High Court which got dismissed. The High Court had said that as trials were concluded in Maharashtra and that the application for premature release has to be filed in Maharashtra and not in Gujarat.
Justice Nagarathna said that the petitioner-convict should have then moved the Bombay High Court first with his remission application, if at all.
The Bench sad that it would consider the issue at greater length when it hears counsel for the convicts but clarified that it was only putting forth these questions.
The Court looking to a batch of pleas challenging the decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to 11 convicts who had gang-raped Bilkis Bano and murdered her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots.
During the hearing, Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra, said that the people justifying the move to release the convicts emphasise that the convicts were Brahmins.
The TMC leader had also said that it is objectionable how the convicts were garlanded on their release.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who appeared for the Gujarat and Central governments questioned how garlanding by family was wrong.
Advocate Shobha Gupta said that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Godhra district judge and an Additional Director General of Police had recommended against granting the convicts remission.
She added that the concerned jail superintendent did lo not examine the gravity of the offence and failed to record reasons for recommending their premature release.
It was argued that this was a negligent exercise done very mechanically or perhaps done with deliberate carelessness, if not a callous approach.
the other lawyers Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra and Advocate Rishi Malhotra, representing two of the convicts, said they would be raising the issue of the locus of petitioners other than Bano.
The hearing is set to continue today.