In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has taken up the review of a writ petition filed by Bilkis Yakub Rasool and others against the Union of India and others. The petitioners are challenging the orders of remission passed by the State of Gujarat in favour of certain respondents.
In a heinous and barbaric act fuelled by communal animosity, twelve individuals have been convicted for their involvement in a shocking crime. The victim in focus, Bilkis Yakub Rasool, who was pregnant at the time, endured a brutal gang rape. The atrocity didn’t stop there; the petitioner’s mother suffered the same fate, along with her cousin, who had recently given birth, and several others who fell victim to rape and murder.
Tragically, eight minors, including a two-day-old infant belonging to the petitioner’s cousin, were mercilessly killed. The petitioner’s three-year-old daughter met a gruesome end as her head was brutally smashed against a rock. Additionally, the petitioner’s two minor brothers, two minor sisters, phupha (uncle), phupi (aunt), mama (uncle), and three cousins were also among the innocent lives tragically lost in this appalling incident. This disturbing event is now under scrutiny in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.491 of 2022.
The case, Writ Petition (Crl.) No.491 of 2022, raises crucial questions regarding the grant of remission and its implications under the law and main facts of the case is that These writ petitions have been filed assailing the Orders dated 10.08.2022, granting remission and early release of respondent Nos.3 to 13 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.491 of 2022 (which petition shall be considered to be the lead petition), who were all convicted, having been found guilty of committing heinous crimes during the large-scale riots in Gujarat on 28.02.2002 and a few days thereafter which occurred in the aftermath of the burning of the train incident in Godhra in the State of Gujarat on 27.02.2002.
The petitioners contend that the remission orders, which resulted in the premature release of convicts in Sessions Case No.634 of 2004, Mumbai, were arbitrary and lacked independent consideration of each convict’s case. They argue that such remission should not be granted to perpetrators of crimes with communal motivation and of such gravity.
Furthermore, the petitioners have invoked various legal provisions, including Article 32 of the Constitution, to challenge the remission orders. They assert that the orders violate fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for proportionality of sentence and the consideration of victims’ rights in the criminal justice system.
This case has garnered attention due to its broader implications for the administration of justice and the rights of victims. The Supreme Court’s review of this writ petition underscores the significance of the issues raised and its potential impact on legal precedents.
“In view of Section 432 (7) read with Section 432 (1) and (2) of the CrPC, we hold that the Government of the State of Gujarat had no jurisdiction to entertain the prayers seeking remission of respondent Nos.3 to 13 herein as it was not the appropriate Government within the meaning of the aforesaid provisions. Hence, the orders of remission dated 10.08.2022 made in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 13 herein are illegal, vitiated and therefore, quashed.” Given by the recent supreme court judgement .
The judgement is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it sends a strong message that perpetrators of communal violence will not be allowed to go unpunished. The court noted that “communal riots cannot be allowed to become a law unto themselves” and that “the rule of law must prevail in such situations.” This is a clear indication that the Indian justice system is committed to upholding the rights of all citizens, regardless of their religion or background.
Secondly, the judgement is a victory for women’s rights and gender justice. Bilkis Bano was subjected to an unspeakable horror, and her case has come to symbolize the struggle for justice for survivors of sexual violence. The court recognized this by stating that “the victim’s right to life and dignity is paramount” and that “the victim’s trauma must be taken into account while delivering justice.” This is a significant step forward for women’s rights in India, as it recognizes that survivors of sexual violence deserve not just legal redress but also emotional and psychological support.
Thirdly, the judgement is a reminder of the importance of independent judiciary in upholding the rule of law. The Gujarat High Court’s decision to overturn the trial court’s verdict was widely criticised as being politically motivated.
However, the Supreme Court has rejected this criticism and affirmed its commitment to upholding the independence of the judiciary. This is an important message for all those who believe in the importance of an independent judiciary in preserving democracy and protecting human rights. In conclusion, the Bilkis Bano case is a landmark decision that has far-reaching implications for women’s rights, communal harmony, and the rule of law in India.
It sends a strong message that perpetrators of communal violence will not be allowed to go unpunished, that survivors of sexual violence deserve not just legal redress but also emotional and psychological support, and that an independent judiciary is essential for upholding democracy and protecting human rights. As India continues to grapple with issues related to communal violence and women’s rights, this judgment serves as a reminder that justice must be served, no matter how long it takes.
Case Name : BILKIS YAKUB RASOOL …PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
Name : Vashni Angel . v , BBA . LLB. (H), College : Amity University , Noida , Intern under Legal Vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments