Bilkis Bano convicts remission: Gujarat files review petition against Supreme Court verdict; seeks deletion of remarks against State

The Gujarat government has filed a review petition before the Supreme Court against the top court's January 8 judgment which set aside the remission granted to the 11 convicts in the gang-rape case of Bilkis Bano. .The State its review plea has challenged the adverse remarks against the Gujarat government in the top court's judgment and sought a review of the judgment with respect to such observations. As per the review petition, the observation by the top court that the State of Gujarat “acted in tandem and was complicit with accused" has caused great prejudice to the State. "It is humbly submitted that the extreme observation made by this Hon’ble Court that the State of Gujarat “acted in tandem and was complicit with Respondent No3/accused” is not only highly unwarranted and against the record of the case, but has caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner-State of Gujarat. In view of the errors on the face of the record , brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court as mentioned hereinabove, the interference of this Hon’ble Court is imperative and this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to review its impugned common final judgement and order dated January 8, 2024 passed in the Writ Petition No. 491 of 2022 to the extent as mentioned hereinabove," the plea states..On January 8, 2024, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan held that the Gujarat government was "complicit and acted in tandem" with the convict who had earlier approached the Supreme Court for a decision on his plea for premature release in the Bilkis Bano gang rape case..The top court said that the Gujarat government should have filed a review petition against another Supreme Court judgment of May 2022 that declared the State of Gujarat to be competent to decide the plea for remission of convicts in the case though the trial and conviction in the case had taken place in Maharashtra. The bench of Justice Nagarathna concluded that the Court in the May 2022 judgment was misled by suppression of facts by the convict and that use of power by Gujarat to grant relief to the convicts after the May 2022 ruling amounted to usurpation of power of Maharashtra government..“It was the State of Maharashtra [which] could have only passed the remission orders respondent no 3 [convict] surreptitiously filed the plea before the Supreme Court. Taking advantage of May 13 order of this court, other convicts also filed remission applications and this Gujarat government passed remission orders. Gujarat was complicit and acted in tandem with respondent no. 3 (convict) in this case. This court was misled by suppressing facts. Use of power by Gujarat was only an usurpation of power by the State,” the Supreme Court ruled in the January 8 verdict.On the Supreme Court's May 2022 ruling that held Gujarat to be competent to decide the plea for premature release of the convicts, the bench headed by Justice Nagarathna found that the convict who had approached the top court had suppressed the material facts.The convict had not disclosed that the Gujarat High Court had earlier dismissed his plea which prayed that a decision on his remission plea should be taken by the Gujarat government. After that he had even filed an application of remission in Maharashtra and when the same was rejected by the Maharashtra government, he moved the Supreme Court which then ruled in his favour in May 2022 and held Gujarat to be the competent State to decide the remission plea.Pursuant to that, the Gujarat government released him and other convicts.The Court found the convict to have "played fraud" with it as it reasoned that if he were aggrieved by the Gujarat High Court order, he could have filed an appeal before the top court instead of moving the Maharashtra government.The top court took exception to this in its January 8, 2024 judgment and said that Gujarat High Court order could not have been set aside in an Article 32 plea.Due to the suppression of the facts, the bench headed by Justice Nagarathna held the earlier ruling of May 2022 as non est and invalid in law."May 13, 2022 order of this court is also per incuriam since it does not follow the binding decision of the nine judge bench of the Supreme court where a HC order cannot be set aside in a PIL..," it added..The Gujarat government has now sought to delete adverse remarks against the State in the apex court judgment. It has contended that the State government had only acted as per the mandamus issued the Supreme Court by way of its judgment of May 2022.Moreover, the State of Gujarat had consistently told the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court that it was the Maharashtra government which was competent to decide the remission plea since the trial happened in Maharashtra. "The State of Gujarat, has consistently submitted before this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, that the State of Maharashtra is the “Appropriate Government” u/s 432(7) of CrPC. A bare perusal of the judgement dated 13.05.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court, would show that a categorical submission was made by the State of Gujarat that since the trial has been concluded in the State of Maharashtra, the expression ‘appropriate Government’ as referred to under Section 432(7) of CrPC would be the State of Maharashtra," the review plea states.