Updated on Oct 12, 5.25 p.m.

SC reserves verdict on pleas filed against remission granted to convicts in Bilkis Bano case

The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions filed against the early release of convicts in the Bilkis Bano case by the Gujarat government.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan reserved the judgment after hearing both the sides on the question of validity of the remission orders. The bench ordered the Centre and state government to file records along with translation pertaining to the convicts’ remission by Oct 16.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, in her rejoinder arguments, submitted that the decision of the apex court in the case will reflect the “conscience of the Constitution.”

Updated on Sept 14, 9 p.m.

The Supreme Court today said that it will be required to examine if remission applications of convicts in the Bilkis Bano case were given any preferential treatment by the Gujarat government.

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that there are some convicts who are “more privileged” as usually cases are filed against denial of early release.

The bench was considering the batch of pleas filed against the Gujarat government's decision allowing early release of convicts in the case of gang rape of Bilkis and murder of her family members committed during the 2002 post-Godhra riots. 

During the hearing, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for a convict, put forth that the seriousness of crime cannot be a factor for challenging the early release as grant of remission is meant for rehabilitation and reformation of offenders. 

The matter is likely to continue on Sept 20. 

In an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court had questioned convicts for approaching the trial court in Mumbai and depositing the fine imposed on them without awaiting its decision on their interlocutory application moved before the top court. 

The convicts said that though non-deposition of fine does not affect the decision on remission, yet it was deposited to "reduce the controversy".

The top court had noted that the fine was not paid when the Gujarat government allowed release of these 11 convicts under its remission policy on Aug 15 last year.

The Supreme court today questioned convicts in the Bilkis Bano case for depositing fine without awaiting its decision on their interlocutory application, particularly when the final hearing is underway before it in the batch of pleas filed against the Gujarat government’s decision allowing their early release in the case of her gang rape and murder of her family members.

During the hearing, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was apprised by senior advocate Sidharth Luthra that convicts have approached the trial court in Mumbai and have deposited the fine imposed upon them. 

He contended that though non-deposition of fine does not affect the decision on remission, he had advised his clients to deposit the fine to “reduce the controversy”.

However, the bench questioned the deposition of the fine without awaiting the outcome of their application filed before the court. 

"You seek permission and then you deposit without getting permission?” it asked. 

The top court noted that the fine was not paid when the Gujarat government allowed release of these 11 convicts under its remission policy on Aug 15 last year.

Luthra told the apex court that the sessions court in Mumbai accepted the fine in normal against their apprehensions.

He repeatedly argued that deposition or non-deposition of fine does not have any “legal consequence” in extending remission to a convict. 

He reiterated that applications seeking early release were considered by the Gujarat government pursuant to an earlier order of the top court and remission order having an essence of judicial order cannot be challenged by way of filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. 

Earlier, it was pointed out before the Supreme court that the convicts did not pay the fines imposed on them and non-payment of fine renders remission order illegal. 

The court fixed the next hearing on Sept 14 and asked convicts to conclude their submission on that day. 

The Centre, Gujarat government, and the convicts have opposed the public interest litigations (PILs) filed by CPI-M leader Subhashini Ali, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, national federation of Indian women, Asma Shafique Shaikh and others, saying that once the victim herself has approached the court, others may not be allowed to intervene in a criminal matter. 

Additional solicitor general SV Raju had argued that remission is reduction of sentence and a PIL cannot be entertained on the question of sentence. 

“Insofar as the quantum of sentence is concerned, a third party can never have a say,” he had said. 

The 11 men convicted in the case were released on Aug 15 last year, after the Gujarat government allowed their release under its remission policy. The convicts had completed 15 years in jail.

(Source: IANS)

-Edited for style

For more such updates and news on the go, follow us on

Instagram | YouTube | Facebook