CASE COMMENT WRITING
Bilkis Yakub Rasool Vs. Union of India& Ors. (2023)
– By Tanya
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. FACTS
3. ISSUES RAISED
4. CONTENTION
5. RATIONALE
6. DEFECTS OF LAW
7. INFERENCE
INTRODUCTION
Case Title: BILKIS YAKUB RASOOL …PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
Citation: WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.491 OF 2022.
Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna & KM Joseph
Decided on: January 8,2024
Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
This particular case is about a girl named Bilkis Bano who is a Muslim. She was kidnapped while trying to escape with her family. She was five months pregnant when she was raped. The mob not only raped her, but also killed almost all of her family.
This incident angered people across the country. 11 of them were found guilty of this crime and sentenced to life imprisonment. The decision was approved by the District Judge. The bench comprised Supreme Court Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna. The crimes they commit are so heinous that the courts need to be tough on them.
A few years later, in 2022, prisoners received “special assistance” from the new structure. This is an important part of the 75th Independence celebration called ‘Azadi Ka Mahotsav’. As a result, 11 criminals were released after serving their 14-year sentences. The Gujarat government’s decision not only angered the victim Bilkis Bano; Many people in the country also protested the convicts’ decision. He petitioned against their early release.
FACTS
• The incident took place after the Sabarmati train massacre when two trains were burnt by the Karsevaks while they were returning from Ayodhya. On February 27, 2002, 59 Karsevaks died.
• The attack took place on March 3, 2022, in Limkheda taluka in Gujarat’s Dahod district. Bilkis Bano, a resident of Radhikapur village in Dahod district, decided to escape after seeing prisoners setting fire to houses and looting Muslim properties during Pakr.
• The victim of the case, Bilkis Bano, ran away from home with fifteen family members, including her three and an half years old daughter, and settled in Chaparvad village. They live in a field connected to a dirt road leading to the village of Pannivilla.
• While running through the village, they were attacked by about twenty to thirty people, who attacked and killed gangster Bilkis Bano, her mother, and three men. Another woman in the family. Of the group of 17 Muslims in Radhikapur village, all but one and a three-year-old child were killed. The bodies of eight of them were recovered, while the others were crushed beyond recognition.
• Between 2002 and 2003, when Bilkis Bano tried to register the complaint against the defendant, the district police repeatedly refused to register, saying that they could not provide the necessary evidence. Not only that, they threatened him to drop the case or someone else will prosecute him.
• In December 2003, Bilkis Bano had no choice but to confess to the crime in the Supreme Court of India.
• The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Supreme Court took up the matter and directed the CBI to investigate.
• In January 2004, after a thorough investigation, the CBI collected all the evidence and arrested all the accused.
• In August 2004, Bilkis Bano expressed concern that evidence would be tampered with. Witnesses in the case were also threatened, so they too may face damages. So the case was moved from Ahmedabad to Mumbai.
• In January 2008, a Mumbai court found the accused guilty of conspiring to rape Bilkis Bano and murder her family. As a result, 11 people were sentenced to life imprisonment for this crime. They applied to the Supreme Court to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision.
• In July 2011, the CBI filed a petition in the Bombay High Court requesting the hanging of the convicts in the case.
• In July 2016, the Bombay High Court decided to hear the case of jurors challenging the court’s conviction of killing the victim’s family for a terrorist attack on him.
• In September 2016, the Bombay High Court rejected the prosecutor’s request to re-examine the evidence in the case.
• In December 2016, the court’s decision was overturned by the Bombay High Court. This followed an appeal to the High Court by the accused in the case, who was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court rejected the CBI’s plea to hang the three convicts in the case as death penalty is given only in rare cases.
• In May 2017, after hearing two cases, both sides, the Bombay High Court upheld the trial court’s life imprisonment sentence for the 11 criminals in the case.
• On May 15, 2022, one of the convicts applied to the Supreme Court, claiming that he had been in prison for more than 15 years. For this reason, he appealed to the Supreme Court and requested his release.
• On Independence Day, all those convicted in the case were released. On August 15, 2022, the Gujarat High Court released them from Godhra Jail under the 1992 commutation act.
• The Supreme Court decided to hear the petitions for the sentences of the convicts on August 7, 2023.
ISSUES RAISED
The questions before the Supreme Court were:
1.Does the Gujarat High Court have jurisdiction and authority to pass such an order?
2. Is the justification for considering the discount and exemption correct?
3. Did the Gujarat High Court judges consider the seriousness of their crime before releasing them?
4. Did the Gujarat government adopt the same standards as other murder cases while releasing convicted murderers?
What is Remission?
• Life imprisonment usually means that the offender remains in prison for the rest of his or her life. However, the state and central government can release these people from time to time, but not by imposing additional penalties until they serve 14 years. The decision taken by the government is called amnesty.
• Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution provide for the discretionary power of the President and the Governor General to grant pardons. It also contains reduced sentences for two digits.
• The decision-making process determines the proposal and objective structure of the sentence change. The court said that the sentence reduction must be conscious, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary;
• Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000), the Supreme Court issued five decisions: Whether the crime is fair to the offender. practices that affect people; and whether offenses are likely to be repeated in the future; Even if the perpetrator has lost his capacity to commit a crime; even with the intention of keeping the criminal in prison;
• But recently, the Supreme Court considered the issue of sentencing modification, prompting seven Justices to raise the question of whether States could, by enacting a law, allow benefits to be transferred to criminals. The board will decide whether the state can use emergency powers without consulting the governor.
• The court will also look at Section 433-A of the CrPC, which provides that a person sentenced to life imprisonment cannot benefit from remission for not completing 14 years of imprisonment.
CONTENSION OF PETITIONER
When Bilkis Bano learned that the defendant was in prison, she filed a review petition with the Supreme Court. Several people like CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali, independent journalist Revati Laul, former vice-chancellor of Lucknow University Rup Rekha Roop Rekha Verma and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra were also present. The Gujarat government pardoned 11 convicts who committed crimes against a terrorist. After being convicted of murdering 14 families, she and all the women in her family were released from prison. But the government has no obligation to use its power for the public good or to benefit criminals. This amnesty was challenged in the Supreme Court on August 23, 2022.
After all the convicts were released from prison on August 15, 2022, Bilkis Bano’s lawyer Shobha Gupta objected to the early release in the 11-convict Radheshyam case. Shah, Jasvantbhai Nai, Govindbhai Nai, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Shailesh Bhatt, Kesarbhai Vohania, Bakabhai Vohania, Pradeep Mordhiya, Mithaiesh Bhatt, Rajubhai Ramesh Chandana.
Several public interest petitions (PILs) have been filed against the decision to release criminals who committed serious crimes. Senior advocate Indira Jai sing is one of the experts who filed the PIL. The Supreme Court heard all the arguments of the people who filed the PIL in the Bilkis Bano case and decided whether these people had a duty to file the application. Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, counsel for one of the convicts, argued that when the petitioner himself appeared in court and filed a petition against the earlier release of the convicts, others had no right to file a PIL.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENTS
Sonia Mathur, defense lawyer of another prisoner named Bipin Chandra Joshi, argued that only the state has the right to challenge the court’s decision. Victims have no right to do this. He also said his clients were not responsible for the government’s decisions. The state is responsible for its mistakes in aiding assistance. She added that she knew that what happened to the victim could not be reversed by paying the money. However, in all rape cases to date, he has received the most favorable position, assistance and payment, which is the right of the victim, not the perpetrator.
Mathur also argued that the convict will be released from prison only after fulfilling all the conditions for early release and no outsider has the right to file a PIL as they have no influence to affect the cancellation period. He also supported various Supreme Court decisions recommending early release of criminals with reduced sentences.
RATIONALE
Bilkis Bano filed a review petition against the Gujarat government’s decision to commute the sentences of 11 convicts in the case by granting them early release. On April 18, 2023, the Supreme Court of India criticized the Gujarat government for the premature release of rape and murder suspects. The government has a duty to understand the seriousness of the case before releasing the prisoner. The Supreme Court ruled that they should not be released after committing a dangerous crime. Those who commit gang violence against pregnant women and other women in their families or kill their families do not have the right to be released from prison.
Justice K. M. Joseph said that it is the responsibility of the government to use its power for the benefit of the people of the country. He also asked whether the Gujarat government compared the killing of 14 family members to the killing of one person. He also said that murder should not be compared to murder.
Gujarat Government and Center decided against the court’s decision. So, they need all the information about mitigation. They requested a review on March 27, 2023, but the judge rejected the request. That’s why they disagree. The Supreme Court gave them time to decide whether to file a review petition. The court also requested that the parole period of convicts serving life imprisonment be extended. The court also noted that the state’s authority to make changes cannot be altered by judicial review unless the federal government decides to order the change.
Highlights of the Supreme Court are as follows:
The Supreme Court on January 8, 2024, rejected the Gujarat government’s decision to reduce the sentences of 11 people convicted in the Bilkis Bano case.
•The court also said that the Gujarat government was not the appropriate government to issue the transfer order. The competent government to decide on commutation of punishment should be the state (Maharashtra) where the criminal was sentenced, not the state in the region where he committed the crime.
• The court also criticized the Gujarat government. Punishing the perpetrators was accepted without taking the issue seriously. The court added that the order dated May 13, 2022, directing the Gujarat government to consider the issue of commutation of sentence, was obtained through “fraud” in the court and actual information was concealed. Criminals do not give a clean slate to court.
• Court says Gujarat effort is an example of abuse of power (controlling something powerless).
• The Supreme Court added that not all convicts can be released from jail after bail is cancelled, must be handed over to the police in prison within two weeks.
DEFECTS OF LAW
This case is one of the significant civil rights and crimes against women cases that occur every day in some parts of the country.
With the release of these criminals, the amnesty was criticized by the Supreme Court, and many journalists, activists and politicians were behind the crime, and injustice was done to innocent people.
Crimes such as gang violence are a curse to humanity and therefore reflect the failure of the rule of law and justice. No compensation will be paid to women who commit violence.
INFERENCE
We can say that the Bilkis Bano case has many dimensions, especially social and legal. We need to take a hard look at everything and stand firm in our commitment to protecting women’s rights while making the necessary changes to laws that restrict freedoms for anyone in this country who does not deserve their rights.
REFERENCES
1. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/03/28/supreme-court-issues-notice-in-pleas-against-remission-of-convicts-in-bilkis-bano-case-legal-research-legal-news-updates/
2.https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/supreme-court-questions-validity-of-order-allowing-premature-release-plea-in-bilkis-bano-gang-rape-case-101691519770807.html
3.https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/bilkis-bano-case-supreme-court-asks-how-convicts-earlier-writ-petition-could-have-been-admitted-by-court-234744
4.https://m.timesofindia.com/india/what-were-the-special-grounds-to-free-bilkis-bano-case-convicts-supreme-court/articleshow/99043800.cms.
5.https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/38741/38741_2022_12_1501_49383_Judgement_08-Jan-2024.pdf
-By Tanya
(B.A. LL. B)5th year
Invertis University, Bareilly, U.P.