SC denies interim bail to Bilkis Bano convicts amid remission plea dispute

Bilkis Bano case: The convicts had sought temporary release pending the Supreme Court's decision on a new remission plea

The Supreme Court, on Friday, rejected the interim bail requests of Radheyshyam Bhagwandas and Rajubhai Babulal, who were convicted of raping Bilkis Bano and murdering her family during the 2002 Gujarat riots in Godhra.

The convicts, Bhagwandas and Babulal, sought temporary release pending the Supreme Court’s decision on a new remission plea. They are challenging the court’s January ruling that cancelled their Independence Day 2022 release authorised by the Gujarat government.

In March this year, Bhagwandas and Babulal approached the court, arguing that the January ruling violated a 2002 order by the Constitution bench. They requested that the matter of their remission, cancelled by the Gujarat government, be referred to a larger bench.

They asserted that an ‘anomalous’ situation had arisen, with two different Supreme Court benches of equal strength issuing contradictory opinions on the state government’s early release policy for prisoners.

The plea submitted today stated that in May 2022, one bench instructed the state to consider Bhagwandas’ request for early release. However, the bench that issued the recent verdict held that Maharashtra, not Gujarat, had the authority to grant remission.

The plea, stating that there is a possibility that the January 8 verdict can be used as legal precedence, said, “... if this is permitted then it would lead not only to judicial impropriety but to uncertainty and chaos as to which precedence (sic) of law has to be applied in future.”

The plea requested the Centre to evaluate the case for early release and specify whether the judgment from May 13, 2022, or January 8, 2024, will be applicable.

Advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for Bhagwandas and Babulal, said, “My lords... now with two court decisions... if I can be allowed to approach the authority.”

Supreme Court on the petition

Stating that the petition is misconceived, Justice Sanjiv Khanna said, “What is this plea... how is it even maintainable? Absolutely misconceived... How can we sit on appeal in PIL (public interest litigation).”
 

He further said, “There are two judgments... an earlier judgment (the May ruling) was considered in the second (the January verdict) ... under Article 32 (which gives every individual the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights).”
 

The court ruled that it is not ‘sitting the appeal’.

Bilkis Bano case: January verdict

In its January judgment, the court strongly criticised its earlier ruling from May 2022, which had been delivered by Justice Ajay Rastogi (now retired), and stated that the Gujarat government should have requested a review of this decision.
 

The apex court highlighted that the release had been based on a 1992 remission policy, which had been replaced by a 2014 law, and ordered the 11 convicts back to prison.
 

In August 2022, the 11 convicts, who were serving life sentences, were prematurely released after the state approved their remission pleas based on the 1992 policy, citing their ‘good conduct’.
 

The Supreme Court criticised the Gujarat government, stating it had ‘usurped’ the authority of its Maharashtra counterparts in granting remission to the convicts.

Bilkis Bano, who was 21 years old and five months pregnant at the time, was raped. Her three-year-old daughter was among the seven family members killed.

[With agency inputs]