New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed interim bail petitions filed by two men – Radheyshyam Bhagwandas and Rajubhai Babulal – who had been convicted of raping Bilkis Bano and killing her family during the 2002 riots in Gujarat’s Godhra.

Bhagwandas and Babualal had sought temporary release till the top court ruled on a fresh remission plea. They have filed a challenge to the court’s January verdict that cancelled their release by the Gujarat government on Independence Day in 2022.

Bilkis Bano Convicts’ Appeal

In March, Bhagwandas and Babulal moved the court contending the January verdict contravened a 2002 order by the Constitution bench and asked that the issue – of their remission by the Gujarat government being cancelled – be referred to a larger bench.

They claimed an “anomalous” situation had arisen; i.e., two different benches of the Supreme Court, both of same strength, had taken diametrically opposite views on the state government’s policy of early release of prisoners.

According to the plea today, in May 2022 one bench directed the state to consider Bhagwandas’ plea for early release. However, the bench that delivered the verdict said it was the Maharashtra, and not Gujarat, that was competent to grant remission.

READ | 2 Bilkis Bano Case Convicts Ask For “Final” Order On Remission

“… if this is permitted then it would lead not only to judicial impropriety but to uncertainty and chaos as to which precedence (sic) of law has to be applied in future,” the plea argued, warning that the January 8 verdict could be used as legal precedence.

The plea sought a direction to the centre to consider the case for premature release and clarify which judgement – May 13, 2022, or January 8, 2024, – will be applicable.

“My lords… now with two court decisions… if I can be allowed to approach the authority,” advocate Rishi Malhotra, who filed the plea for Bhagwandas and Babulal, said.

What Supreme Court Said

“What is this plea… how is it even maintainable? Absolutely misconceived… How can we sit on appeal in PIL (public interest litigation),” Justice Sanjiv Khanna declared.

“There are two judgments… earlier judgment (the May ruling) was considered in the second (the January verdict) … under Article 32 (which gives every individual the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights) …” he said.

“We are not sitting in appeal…” the court ruled.

Court’s Bilkis Bano January Verdict

In the January judgment, the court had been extremely critical of its May 2022 ruling, delivered by Justice Ajay Rastogi (now retired), and said the Gujarat government should have sought its review.

READ | “Abuse Of Power By Gujarat”: Bilkis Bano’s Rapists To Return To Jail

It noted the release had been ordered based on a 1992 remission policy that had been superseded by a 2014 law and sent the 11 convicts back to jail.

In August 2022, the 11 convicts – serving life sentences – were granted premature release after the state accepted their remission pleas in keeping with a 1992 policy and cited their “good conduct”.

READ | “… Fraudulent Means”: Supreme Court On Bilkis Bano Case Order

Criticising the Gujarat government, the Supreme Court said it had “usurped” the power of its Maharashtra counterparts to grant remission to the convicts.

Bilkis Bano was 21 years old, and had been pregnant for five months, when she was raped. Her three-year-old daughter was among the seven family members killed.

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court said it will hear on Monday the arguments on petitions challenging the premature release of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case and murder of seven of her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan on Friday asked the counsel for the petitioners, including Bilkis Bano, to file their short written rejoinder arguments.

One of the advocates appearing in the matter said arguments on behalf of the convicts have been concluded and the matter has been fixed for hearing rejoinder submissions by the petitioners’ counsel.

“We don’t want reopening of the whole case again at your instance,” the bench told the lawyer, adding that it would be better if the petitioners’ counsel filed a short note of their rejoinder arguments.

“List on October 9 at 2 pm. In the meanwhile, counsel for the petitioners to file their short written arguments…,” the bench said.

While hearing the matter on September 20, the top court had asked whether convicts have a fundamental right to seek remission.

“Is the right to seek remission a fundamental right? Will a petition lie under Article 32 (that deals with citizens’ right to move the Supreme Court directly if their fundamental rights are infringed) of the Constitution,” the bench had asked a lawyer appearing for one of the 11 convicts. The lawyer had acknowledged seeking remission was indeed not a fundamental right of the convicts.

The victim and others also do not have the right to move the Supreme Court directly by filing a petition under Article 32 as no fundamental right of theirs has been infringed either, he had argued, adding the victims have other statutory rights to challenge the grant of remission.

While hearing the arguments on August 17, the top court had said state governments should not be selective in granting remission to convicts and the opportunity to reform and reintegrate with society should extend to every prisoner.

Besides the petition filed by Bilkis Bano contesting the remission granted to them, several other PILs including one by CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali, independent journalist Revati Laul and former vice-chancellor of Lucknow University Roop Rekha Verma have challenged the relief. TMC MP Mahua Moitra has also filed a PIL against the remission and their premature release.

Bilkis Bano was 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped while fleeing the horror of the communal riots that broke out after the Godhra train-burning incident. Her three-year-old daughter was among the seven family members killed in the riots.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court questioned one of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case today about depositing the fine imposed on him when the hearing on the pleas challenging his remission was in progress. Appearing for convict Ramesh Rupabhai Chandana, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra told a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan that the convicts have approached the trial court in Mumbai and have deposited the fine imposed upon them.

“Does non-deposit of fine has a bearing on the remission? Did you apprehend that non-deposit of fine would have an impact on the merits of the case? First you ask for permission and now without permission you have deposited,” the bench said.

Mr Luthra said non-deposition of fine does not affect the decision on remission but he had advised his clients to deposit the fine to “reduce the controversy”.

“According to me, this has no legal consequence. But since the argument was raised… To reduce the controversy, we have deposited now,” he said.

One of the petitioners challenging the remission granted to convicts, has argued that their premature release is illegal as they have not served their sentence in entirety. It was also argued that since the convicts did not pay the fine amounting to Rs 34,000, they had to undergo additional sentence which they have not.

Mr Luthra told the court that the convicts had filed an application seeking its permission to deposit the fine, as there was apprehension that the sessions court might not accept it.

“We have filed certain applications with respect to deposit of fine. They have moved sessions court and it has accepted the fine now. I have advised them that it is appropriate to do so,” Mr Luthra said, clarifying there was no attempt to “overreach” court’s authority.

As the hearing began, Mr Luthra defended the remission granted to his client, saying reformation is the ultimate aim of criminal justice system.

“Otherwise in a murder case, death would be applied more frequently by the judicial dictat but it is applied in the rarest of the rare cases. These are not the cases which are beyond the remit of reformation. These are not the cases where there was a fixed term sentence. My submission is that arguments on society’s cry for justice, heinous offence is not relevant at this stage as the court has not said that remission is not permissible,” he said.

The hearing will resume on September 14.

On August 17, the top court had said that state governments should not be selective in granting remission to convicts and the opportunity to reform and reintegrate with society should be given to every prisoner, as the Gujarat government defended its decision of premature release of all 11 convicts.

Besides the petition filed by Bilkis Bano contesting the remission granted to them, several other petitions — including one by CPM leader Subhashini Ali, independent journalist Revati Laul and former vice-chancellor of Lucknow University Roop Rekha Verma — have challenged the remission. Ms Moitra has also filed a PIL against the remission.

Bilkis Bano was 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gangraped during the communal riots that broke out in Gujarat after the Godhra train-burning incident. Her three-year-old daughter was among the seven family members killed.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)