Express News Service
NEW DELHI: “A series of judgments were cited, where is the factual scenario, where is the application of mind?”, the Supreme Court quizzed in response to the counter affidavit filed by the State of Gujarat in the Bilkis Bano case.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday posted the PILs filed by three women’s rights activists including Subhashini Ali challenging the release of the 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case for November 29, 2022.
Gujarat government’s 1992 policy did not prohibit the remission of rape, gang rape or murder convicts.
Granting time to the petitioners to respond to the affidavit filed by the Gujarat government, a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar in their order said, “Counter affidavit has been filed by State. Any further rejoinder affidavit if to be filed, be filed within the next date of hearing. Let counter affidavits be made available to all the lawyers. List the matters on November 29, 2022.”
Questioning the maintainability of the petitioners, the Gujarat government has told SC yesterday that third-party strangers were precluded from questioning a remission order passed by the State government which is strictly in accordance with law. It was also stated that the state had considered the proposal under 1992 policy & not granted it under circular governing the grant of remission to prisoners as part of celebration of “Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav”. Further, the state had added the opinions of the Inspector General of Prisons, Gujarat State, Jail Superintendents, Jail Advisory Committee, District Magistrate, Police Superintendent, CBI, Special Crime Branch, Mumbai and Hon. Sessions Court, Mumbai (CBI) were considered and the state decided to release the 11 convicts on completion of their 14 years sentence as their “behavior was found to be good” and after approval from the central government,” the affidavit further said.
“All the convict prisoners have completed 14+ years in the prison under life imprisonment and opinions of the concerned authorities have been obtained as per the policy of 09.07.1992 and submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide letter dated 28/06/2022 and sought the approval/suitable orders of the Government of India. The Government of India conveyed the concurrence/approval of the Central Government under Section 435 of the CrPC for premature release of 11 prisoners vide letter dated 11.07.2022,” said the state government.
In its affidavit filed in September 2022, the convict Radhey Shyam Bhagwandas Shah had also questioned the locus of the petitioners. Justifying the release, the convict had also said that SC in its order dated May 13, 2022 had said that Gujarat government’s policy would be applicable for their remission and had thus directed the State of Gujarat to consider the application for premature release in terms of the policy dated July 9, 1992.
The PIL reportedly said the convicts should not be released as it is a case that involves gang rape and murder.
It may be recalled that a five-month pregnant Bano was gang-raped and her three-year-old daughter Saleha was among 14 people killed by a mob in Dahod on March 3, 2002, in communal riots that consumed Gujarat following the death of 59 passengers, mainly ‘Kar Sevaks’, when the Sabarmati Express was set on fire.
NEW DELHI: “A series of judgments were cited, where is the factual scenario, where is the application of mind?”, the Supreme Court quizzed in response to the counter affidavit filed by the State of Gujarat in the Bilkis Bano case.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday posted the PILs filed by three women’s rights activists including Subhashini Ali challenging the release of the 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case for November 29, 2022.
Gujarat government’s 1992 policy did not prohibit the remission of rape, gang rape or murder convicts.
Granting time to the petitioners to respond to the affidavit filed by the Gujarat government, a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar in their order said, “Counter affidavit has been filed by State. Any further rejoinder affidavit if to be filed, be filed within the next date of hearing. Let counter affidavits be made available to all the lawyers. List the matters on November 29, 2022.”
Questioning the maintainability of the petitioners, the Gujarat government has told SC yesterday that third-party strangers were precluded from questioning a remission order passed by the State government which is strictly in accordance with law. It was also stated that the state had considered the proposal under 1992 policy & not granted it under circular governing the grant of remission to prisoners as part of celebration of “Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav”. Further, the state had added the opinions of the Inspector General of Prisons, Gujarat State, Jail Superintendents, Jail Advisory Committee, District Magistrate, Police Superintendent, CBI, Special Crime Branch, Mumbai and Hon. Sessions Court, Mumbai (CBI) were considered and the state decided to release the 11 convicts on completion of their 14 years sentence as their “behavior was found to be good” and after approval from the central government,” the affidavit further said.
“All the convict prisoners have completed 14+ years in the prison under life imprisonment and opinions of the concerned authorities have been obtained as per the policy of 09.07.1992 and submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide letter dated 28/06/2022 and sought the approval/suitable orders of the Government of India. The Government of India conveyed the concurrence/approval of the Central Government under Section 435 of the CrPC for premature release of 11 prisoners vide letter dated 11.07.2022,” said the state government.
In its affidavit filed in September 2022, the convict Radhey Shyam Bhagwandas Shah had also questioned the locus of the petitioners. Justifying the release, the convict had also said that SC in its order dated May 13, 2022 had said that Gujarat government’s policy would be applicable for their remission and had thus directed the State of Gujarat to consider the application for premature release in terms of the policy dated July 9, 1992.
The PIL reportedly said the convicts should not be released as it is a case that involves gang rape and murder.
It may be recalled that a five-month pregnant Bano was gang-raped and her three-year-old daughter Saleha was among 14 people killed by a mob in Dahod on March 3, 2002, in communal riots that consumed Gujarat following the death of 59 passengers, mainly ‘Kar Sevaks’, when the Sabarmati Express was set on fire.
