Bilkis Bano case: SC rejects Gujarat govt's plea seeking review of verdict over certain observations

Written By Varnika Srivastava | Updated: Sep 26, 2024, 07:17 PM IST

In 2008, 11 men were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, but they were released on August 15, 2022, under the Gujarat government's remission policy.

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the Gujarat government's request for a review of its earlier ruling that revoked the remission granted to 11 individuals convicted of raping Bilkis Bano and murdering seven members of her family during the 2002 Gujarat riots.

The Gujarat government approached the Supreme Court in response to certain remarks made about the state in the January 8 ruling. “Having carefully gone through the Review Petitions, the order under challenge and the papers annexed therewith, we are satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record or any merit in the Review Petitions, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned. The Review Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed,” stated a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan.

The Gujarat government contended that the Supreme Court made an “error apparent on the face of the record” by declaring the state guilty of “usurpation of power” and “abuse of discretion” for adhering to an order from another bench of the top court. The government claimed this mistake was clear based on three primary reasons.

Bilkis Bano was 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped while escaping the 2002 Gujarat riots that erupted after the Godhra train burning. Her three-year-old daughter was among the seven family members killed in the attack.

In 2008, 11 men were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, but they were released on August 15, 2022, under the Gujarat government's remission policy.

On January 8, 2024, the Supreme Court determined that the Gujarat government did not have the authority to grant remission, which could only be executed by the Maharashtra government, where the trial occurred. The Court annulled the remission and instructed the convicts to surrender.

The top court remarked that the convicts were “erroneously” freed in “violation of the law.” It also emphasized that the court must serve as a beacon in upholding the rule of law, or it could lead to “a dangerous state of affairs in our democracy and democratic polity.”