On Tuesday in the case of, Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court asked how a writ petition can be filed under Article 32 by a convict in the case for seeking the remission of his sentence in which the Gujarat High Court already had rejected the same relief. The Court considered pleas challenging the decision of the Gujarat government where pleas were repealed for the 11 convicts who had gang-raped the petitioner and murdered her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots. On May 13, 2023, both Justice Rastogi and Nath ruled that the convicts, in this case, should be considered as per the policy existing at the time when the crime was committed.
That ruling was passed after considering it under Article 32 and then the petition was filed by one of the convicts in the case, who had urged the Court to direct the Gujarat Government to reconsider his application for premature release which existed at the time of his conviction. His before petition which he filed in the Gujarat High Court was earlier dismissed by the court. Then, the High Court opined that since when the trial was concluded in Maharashtra then further investigation will take place there only.
At today’s hearing, Senior Advocate Indira Jai Singh put forward her point that the people who are demanding the convicts to release were Brahmins, and once they were released the people garlanded them on their release. Advocate Shobha Gupta said that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Godhra District Judge, and an Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) were against the court for granting them remission. The concerned jail Superintendent did not examine the offense and failed to record the reasons for their premature release.
Therefore, today was the second day of the hearing and the hearing is set to continue tomorrow in the Supreme Court.
NAME – ABHIPRA AGARWAL, COLLEGE – CHANDERPRABHU JAIN COLLEGE OF HIGHER STUDIES, GGSIPU, AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA
