Union and Gujarat Governments Overcome Reluctance to Share Files on Remission of 11 Life Convicts

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 234

In a surprising turn of events, the Centre and the Gujarat government initially hesitated to disclose information regarding the release of 11 life convicts in the Bilkis Bano case. However, they later reversed their stance and agreed to present the original records before the Supreme Court of India. During a hearing on Tuesday, the court was informed that neither government would assert privilege over the information.

The case relates to a batch of petitions challenging the Gujarat government’s decision to grant early release to the 11 convicts who had been convicted of multiple murders and the gangrape of Bilkis Bano during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat. The convicts were released on Independence Day last year after their application for sentence remission was approved by the state government. The matter was being heard by a bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna.

In a significant development, Justice Joseph expressed his discontent over the Centre and Gujarat government’s unwillingness to share the files related to the remission of convicts in the Bilkis Bano case. The bench had explicitly instructed them to prepare the files, but they failed to comply, prompting the judge’s displeasure. This issue led the bench, headed by Justice Joseph, to issue a directive on March 27.

The bench, led by Justice Joseph, has instructed the first respondent, which is the Union of India, and the second respondent, the State of Gujarat, to prepare the relevant files related to the grant of remission to the party respondents for the upcoming hearing. The directive was given in addition to filing their pleadings as advised.

In a recent turn of events, the additional solicitor-general SV Raju informed the court last month that they might file a review application seeking a reconsideration of the previous order. This statement caused some concern for the bench. Justice Joseph emphasized that the main issue in this case is whether the state government had asked the “right” questions and had applied its mind before granting remission to the convicts, without any consultation or concurrence with the government. He made it clear that if the governments failed to provide a reason for the early release of the convicts, the court would be compelled to draw its conclusions.

Justice Joseph Stresses on the Importance of the State Government’s Responsibility in Granting Remissions

During the hearing of the petitions challenging the Gujarat government’s decision to release 11 convicts who were serving life imprisonment for multiple murders and gang rape in the Bilkis Bano case, Justice KM Joseph emphasized the significance of the state government’s responsibility in granting remissions. He raised concerns about whether the government had applied its mind and asked the right questions while granting the remissions.

He further elaborated that the state government could not avoid its responsibility to consider relevant facts, eschew irrelevant facts, and meet other requirements under the Wednesbury principle, regardless of any consultation or concurrence with the Union government. The judge stated that the court is interested in examining whether the government had exercised its power of granting remissions as per the parameters of the law in a bona fide manner.

Justice Joseph categorically stated that if the governments failed to provide reasons for the early release of the convicts, the court would have to draw its conclusions.

In a significant development in the Bilkis Bano case, Solicitor-General for India Tushar Mehta informed the bench that the governments would produce the records, and no review would be sought with respect to the top court’s earlier order. However, the hearing could not proceed as scheduled due to alleged discrepancies in Bano’s affidavit on the service of notice.

The counsel for two of the convicts claimed that the gangrape survivor had filed an affidavit indicating that they had refused to accept the notice, even though they were out of town. They accused Bano of ‘playing fraud’ with the court. However, the petitioners’ counsel objected, stating that the other side was trying to “interrupt” justice with flimsy procedural guards.[i]

Despite the government’s concession, the hearing was adjourned, and the bench ordered Bano’s lawyer to file a reply affidavit regarding the service of notice. The court also directed the Gujarat government to produce the original records of the remission granted to the convicts. The next hearing is scheduled for a later date.

Furthermore, Justice KM Joseph expressed frustration during the hearing as the proceedings were being delayed on procedural grounds. He addressed the lawyers representing the respondents and said that it was clear they were attempting to prevent the bench from hearing the matter. He further stated that he would be retiring on June 15 and since that date falls within the vacation period, his last working day would be Friday, May 19. Justice Joseph emphasized that it was not fair to him and reminded the lawyers of their role as officers of the court. He urged them not to forget their duty to the court, regardless of whether they win or lose a case.

Preceding incidents

In March 2002, Bilkis Bano, a 21-year-old pregnant woman, was brutally gang-raped during the post-Godhra communal riots in the Dahod district of Gujarat, India. Her family members, including her 3-year-old daughter, were also killed by the rioters. The trial was later transferred to Maharashtra, where a sessions court convicted the accused in 2008 and handed them a life sentence. In May 2017, the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of the 11 convicts. Two years later, the Supreme Court directed the Gujarat government to pay Bano Rs 50 lakhs as compensation and provide her with a government job and a house. In 2020, the Gujarat government released the convicts under the remission policy, causing controversy and leading to public interest litigation (PIL) petitions challenging the decision before the Supreme Court. The hearing on the matter was delayed due to alleged discrepancies in Bano’s affidavit on the service of notice, but the court expressed its concern about the need for objective standards to determine such applications and urged the government to provide reasons for the early release of the convicts. In an affidavit, the Gujarat government claimed that the decision was taken after the approval of the central government, considering the good behavior of the convicts and the completion of their 14-year sentence.

written by – Sohini Chakraborty intern under legal vidhiya