Top court seeks files on Bilkis convicts’ release

THE BENCH TOLD THE CENTRE AND STATE TO PRODUCE FILES RELATING TO THE GRANT OF REMISSION TO THE 11 CONVICTS

NEW DELHI : The Supreme Court on Monday termed the gangrape of Bilkis Bano and murder of her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots a “horrendous” crime, directing the Centre and the Gujarat government to produce files regarding the grant of remission to 11 people convicted and sentenced to a life term in the case.

A bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna also asked if the Gujarat government applied the same standards in respect of other prisoners when it granted remission to the 11 convicts, even as it observed that the adjudication of the matter will be strictly on “legality and law”.

“This is a horrendous offence... no doubt about it. Now, we have a stream of murder case convicts who are languishing in jails without remission. So, is this a case where the standards have been adopted uniformly in other cases too?” asked the bench as it heard a bunch of six challenging the remission — while one of these petitions was moved by Bano, others were filed as public interest litigations (PILs) in the wake of the outcry over the premature release of the convicts last August.

Setting down the matter for April 18 for an extensive hearing, the bench directed the Centre and the state government to produce the relevant files relating to the grant of remission to the convicts.

“We will not be going by emotions. That’s the last thing we will do. We are only on legal and law and nothing to do with emotions. We understand whatever we are going to say will affect the conditions of prisoners in this country. We have to put in a balance... liberty and freedom are some of the considerations,” remarked the bench. These observations came when advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for some of the convicts, complained that PIL petitioners cannot question the remission granted in a criminal case and that emotional arguments were being pressed to dispel the requirement of law and maintainability.

The bench, while issuing a notice on Bano’s petition, clarified that it would examine a gamut of issues, including the applicability of the remission policy, definition of “appropriate government” for the purposes of remission, and the considerations made by the authorities concerned.

During the hearing, the court further indicated that it would hear the parties on the point if the Gujarat government was the appropriate government to grant remission under Section 433 and 433A of the CrPC.