SC to hear pleas against convicts’ release in Nov
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned to November 29 the hearing of petitions challenging the Gujarat government’s decision to grant early release to 11 convicts sentenced to life in 2008 for the gang-rape of Bilkis Bano and murder of seven of her family members.
A bench of justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar granted time to the petitioners to file their response to the Gujarat government’s affidavit submitted a day ago, in which the state disclosed that remission of the convicts had the approval of the Union home ministry – though the Central Bureau of Investigation and the trial judge opposed their release – and that “good behaviour” of the convicts was a key reason to grant them the benefit.
Union minister Pralhad Joshi also defended the release of the convicts. In an interview to NDTV, he said: “When the government and the concerned people have taken the decision, I don’t find anything wrong in it as it is a process of law.”
During the brief hearing on Tuesday, solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Gujarat government, submitted that the state is going to argue that petitioners, who have nothing to do with the criminal trial in the matter, cannot be allowed to challenge the remission orders. “We have a legal submission that strangers cannot intervene in criminal cases. That’s a common contention in all matters,” he said.
The SG was supported by advoto
cate Rishi Malhotra, who represented one of the convicts in the matter. “We have objected to their (petitioners’) locus. Everyone is coming to this court and wanting to be tagged. This cannot be allowed in a criminal case,” Malhotra said.
To this, the court pointed out that the affidavits filed by both the state and the convict have raised questions over the maintainability of the petition and that point would be heard when the case is heard at length.
On his part, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the lead petition in the matter, sought time to submit a rejoinder to the state’s affidavit.
At this point, the bench wondered why a “bulky” affidavit containing a catena of judgments was filed by the Gujarat government. “I have not come across so many judgments cited in one affidavit. There is a series of judgments. Where is the reasoning or the application of mind...how does one find?” it asked the SG.
Mehta replied that the state should have avoided filing a voluminous affidavit but the idea was submit all the case laws with the affidavit for an easy reference.
Bano was 21 years old and five months’ pregnant when she was gang-raped while fleeing the violence during the 2002 Gujarat riots, and her three-year-old daughter was one of the seven people killed. Two days after their release, Bano released a statement through her lawyer, saying the latest development has shaken her faith in justice. She urged the Gujarat government to “undo this harm” and give her back the “right to live without fear and in peace”.
The confirmation on MHA’S nod to the proposal of the Gujarat government came out in public domain for the first time in the affidavit; the release of the 11 lifeterm convicts on August 15 sparked an outrage from civil society organisations, women rights groups, and leaders cutting across party lines.
After a PIL, filed jointly by former CPI MP Subhashini Ali, journalist Revati Laul, and professor Roop Rekha Verma challenged the remission, the bench, on August 25 sought responses from the state and the convicts.
The affidavit filed on Monday evening revealed that remission was granted despite objections from the trial court judge who convicted the 11 men, and CBI, which investigated and prosecuted the case in Mumbai following the 2004 apex court order of shifting the trial outside Gujarat.
However, after the MHA and the relevant authorities in the Gujarat government cleared the decks for the release of 11 convicts, the remission order was issued on August 10.