The Gujarat government on Tuesday, 13 February moved the Supreme Court seeking a review of its 8 January verdict quashing the remission granted to 11 convicts in the 2002 Bilkis Bano case, saying that certain observations made against the state were "highly unwarranted," Live Law reported.
What did the petition say? In its petition, the Gujarat government said the apex court’s observation holding the state guilty of “usurpation of power” and “abuse of discretion” for complying with an order of another top court bench, was an “error apparent on the face of the record."
"The extreme observation made by this court that the State of Gujarat 'acted in tandem and was complicit with [one of the] accused' is not only highly unwarranted and against the record of the case but has caused serious prejudice to the State of Gujarat," the petition read, as quoted by Live Law.
According to the plea, in view of the “errors on the face of the record”, the SC's interference is "imperative", and it may be “pleased to review its impugned common final judgment and order dated January 8, 2024."
What was the SC order? On 15 August 2022, the Gujarat government granted remission and released eleven men, sentenced to life for the gang rape of then 21-year-old Bano, and the murder of seven of her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots.
While setting aside the government's decision, on 8 January 2024, the top court had made a key observation – the "appropriate" government to take a call on the remission of convicts was Maharashtra, and not Gujarat.
The court also found that a May 2022 SC order, which paved the way for the Gujarat government to apply its remission policy, was obtained by "fraud" and was invalid.
“This is a classic case where the order of this court dated May 13, 2022, has been used for violating the rule of law while passing orders of remission in favour of respondent nos. 3 to 13 (convicts) in the absence of any jurisdiction by the state of Gujarat.”A SC bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna said
"The government of the State where the offender is sentenced is the appropriate government to grant remission, not the government of the state where the offence took place," Justice Nagarathana had added.
Following the verdict, the convicts had sought extension of the two-week period given to them to surrender, which was also turned down by the court on 19 January.
After this, all eleven convicts surrendered before the Godhra sub-jail in Gujarat's Panchmahal district on 21 January.
(With inputs from Live Law)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)