Bilkis Bano Case: Supreme Court Reverses Remission Order Of 11 Convicts, Check Key Points Of Judgement

Supreme Court of India has given its final verdict on the pleas filed against the remission of the 11 Convicts, one filed by the victim Bilkis Bano herself.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has delivered its final verdict in the Bilkis Bano Case. Please were filed in the apex court, challenging the early release of the 11 Convicts of gangrape of Bilkis Bano during the 2002 Gujarat Riots. The bench of Justice BV Nagaratna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who had reserved their judgement in October 2023 after an 11-day hearing, have set aside the Gujarat government’s order of remission. Supreme Court holds that not Gujarat but Maharashtra govt was competent to pass orders.

Supreme Court Verdict In Bilkis Bano Case

Justice BV Nagarathna has said that the petition filed is maintainable and that women deserve respect. The Supreme Court has set aside the decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to the 11 convicts sentenced to life term for the gangrape of Bilkis Bano & killing her family members during the 2002 Gujarat communal riots. The Supreme Court holds that not Gujarat but Maharashtra govt was competent to pass orders.

Here’s What Justice BV Nagarathna Said..

Justice Nagarathna has said, “Our inferences on the may 2022 order of this court are: respondent no 3 had not stated that Gujarat HC had dismissed his plea under Section 437 of CrPC and that Respondent No 3 had not stated that application of premature release was filed in Maharashtra and not Gujarat.” She further said, “Thus by suppressing material aspects a direction was sought from Gujarat HC seeking premature release of the convict… Respondent no 3 had suppressed the fact that convict had acted upon Gujarat HC order and filed a remission application in Maharashtra and presiding judge of trial, DGP Maharashtra had given their opinion and it was in the process.. suppressing all these facts article 32 plea was filed in this court.”

Respondent Played Fraud, Says Supreme Court

While pronouncing the verdict, Justice Nagarathna said, “If Respondent 3 was aggrieved by HC order of Gujarat dated 2019 he could file an appeal here.. but he did not do so.. he moved Maharashtra for remission.. when the opinion on remission there was negative, he moved the Supreme Court.. thus he played fraud on this court. HC order could not be set aside in an article 32 plea (PIL).