"Don't mention again and again": Supreme Court objects to lawyer for Bilkis Bano repeatedly mentioning plea against convicts' remission

The Supreme Court Wednesday took objection to the counsel for the 2002 Gujarat riots gangrape survivor, Bilkis Bano repeatedly seeking urgent listing of the plea challenging the remission of 11 convicts who had gang raped Bano..Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said that the case had already been listed yesterday and there was no reason to mention it again today even though one of the judges on the bench had recused from the matter."Writ will be listed. Don't keep mentioning the same thing again and again. Very irritating," the CJI said.Advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for Bano, said that the petition was listed yesterday but not taken up. "So what ? Don't keep mentioning this matter again and again. It will be listed. Review (petition) was also circulated yesterday," the CJI responded..Bano has challenged the decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to 11 convicts who had gangraped and murdered her family members during the 2002 Godhra riots.The matter came up before a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi on Monday when the latter chose to recuse from the case..Bano was gangraped in the aftermath of the 2002 riots and her three-year-old-daughter was among twelve people killed by a mob in Limkheda taluka of Dahod district in Gujarat.The Supreme Court had on, May 13, ruled that remission of the convicts in the case should be considered as per the the policy existing at the time of conviction in the State where the crime was actually committed.The top court was considering a petition filed by one of the convicts, Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil seeking direction to the State of Gujarat to consider his application for premature release under the policy dated July 9, 1992 which was existing at the time of his conviction.The petitioner was serving rigorous imprisonment for life after being found guilty of offences under Sections 302, 376(2)(e)(g) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).He had filed a petition for premature release under Sections 433 and 433A of the CrPC seeking premature release stating that he had undergone more than 15 years and 4 months in jail.But his petition filed in the Gujarat High Court came to be dismissed on the ground that since the trial has been concluded in the State of Maharashtra, the application for premature release has to be filed in the Maharashtra and not in Gujarat.The Supreme Court had, however, held that the crime was admittedly committed in Gujarat and ordinarily the trial was to be concluded in the same State and in terms of Section 432(7) CrPC, the appropriate government in the ordinary course would be the Gujarat government.Therefore, since the crime happened in Gujarat, all further proceedings including plea for remission has to be considered as per the policy of Gujarat government.Pursuant to the May 13 judgment of the top court, the Gujarat government had granted remission to 11 convicts who had gangraped and murdered Bano's family members during the riots.The convicts, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, were released by the Gujarat government ahead of the assembly polls in the State.The 11 convicts who were set free are Jaswant Nai, Govind Nai, Shailesh Bhatt, Radhyesham Shah, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Kesarbhai Vohania, Pradeep Mordhiya, Bakabhai Vohania, Rajubhai Soni, Mitesh Bhatt and Ramesh Chandana.This led to the present plea by Bano before the top court.Bano has also separately filed a review petition against the top court's May 13 judgment, contending that the remission policy of State of Maharashtra should apply in present case, instead of 1992 remission policy of Gujarat since the trial had happened in Maharashtra.The review petition was also considered by the apex court in chamber yesterday and the order on the same is awaited.