Bilkis Bano case: Petitioners not estopped from challenging early release of convicts, Supreme Court observes

The Supreme Court on Thursday orally observed that the petitioners challenging the premature release of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang-rape case were not deprived of the right to move court just because the top court had earlier left it to the Gujarat government to decide on the convicts' remission applications. [Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India and ors]..A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing 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. .Addressing Advocate Rishi Malhotra, counsel for one of the convicts, Justice Nagarathna observed,"They (petitioners) are challenging the remission order, which came after the order on the writ petition. You cannot say that remission cannot be questioned because of that. That is the beginning, this was end. You got a mandamus from this Court. They are challenging the remission. You cannot say they are estopped. You may have 101 grounds, only 1-2 may be pressed.".Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Gujarat government and reiterated that all necessary compliances had been done before granting the remission..Meanwhile, Malhotra argued that the scheme of the 1992 Gujarat policy did not require a unanimous or majority decision, but only a collation of the views from various stakeholders."The Mumbai judge's [adverse] view was based on their remission policy," he added.Justice Nagarathna then said that it could not be argued that the Mumbai trial judge's view on the matter was not mandatory, since the view of the Gujarat trial judge had been sought, even if it was because he was a part of the remission committee.Malhotra then pointed out that his client had studied and practised law."Law is a noble profession. Can you practice (after conviction)? Bar Council has to say," Justice Bhuyan replied.To this, Malhotra argued that his client had served his sentence."But the conviction remains," Justice Nagarathna pointed out..Appearing for another convict, Advocate Sonia Mathur argued that once the sentence was reduced, he could not be deprived of his liberty.Justice Nagarathna then observed,"The sentence remains. Only by administrative order, it is reduced. There is a difference between a judicial order and a remission through administrative order. If someone asks what was the sentence, you will say life, that is the vital difference."The Bench also reiterated its question whether all eligible convicts have gotten the benefit of remission after serving twelve years of their sentences.Mathur replied that the settled position by various courts is in favour of remission. She also noted that it is common for accused persons to move even the Supreme Court for bail.This led Justice Nagarathna to question,"How many remissions have taken place? Why are our jails still over crowded? Now all judicial officers are scared to grant bail, because it becomes suspect order and they go by cautious method. Let the higher courts grant, that is their mindset...We are saying what we said in response to your submission saying why all bails come to the Supreme Court," she said.Mathur then emphasised that her client had served fourteen years in prison, and that his premature release was not a charity but something he earned. As such, the lawyer prayed that such release should not be undone at this stage.The hearing in the case will continue on August 31 at 3 PM..The Gujarat government had granted remission to the convicts based on a May 2022 judgment of the apex court, which came on a plea moved by a convict, Radhyesham.The convicts, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, were released by the Gujarat government ahead of the assembly polls in the State.This led to the present batch of pleas before the top court challenging the remission.On August 25 last year, the top court sought the response of the Gujarat government on some of the pleas.The Bench had earlier this month remarked that an accused in a criminal case has a constitutional right to be reintegrated into society. In the last hearing, it asked the Gujarat and Central governments why remission policies were being applied selectively.