Public outcry will not affect judicial decisions: SC on freeing of 11 Bilkis Bano rapists

Legal submissions, and not ‘public outcry’, will affect judicial decisions, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, as it started proceedings to judge the legality of the remissions granted to the 11 convicts involved in the gang-rape of Bilkis Bano and the murder of seven of her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots.

During a hearing presided over by a two-judge bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, the Court stressed its commitment to upholding the law, irrespective of societal outcry or agitations.

“Public outcry will not affect our judicial decisions. We will consider only legal submissions and will not go by this [public anger over the incident]. Suppose, there is no public outcry. Are we supposed to uphold the [remission] order? If there is a public outcry, does it mean it is a wrong order?” the bench told Advocate Shobha Gupta, who was representing Bilkis Bano.

Gupta had argued that ‘public outcry’ should be a pivotal factor that should be considered in granting remission to convicts, referring to the nationwide societal unrest following the convicts’ release in the case.

When the hearing began on Tuesday, the counsel for Bilkis Bano presented evidence that the Additional Director General of Police, Prisons, and Correctional Administration of Gujarat, KLN Rao, had given a negative opinion regarding the remission of the convicts, and not recommended the premature release of one of them, Radheyshyam Bhagwandas Shah.

SC raises doubts over own order in Bilkis Bano case

The Supreme Court also raised doubts about the legality of the writ petition filed by Shah, who had filed the petition seeking premature release from jail was declined by the Gujarat High Court in 2019.

“How is this writ petition before this court maintainable after he has already availed remedy under Article 226 [before High Court], accepted order and acted on it? For what purpose did he come to this court, and how did this court entertain the petition?” the bench asked.

Article 226 gives power to the High Courts to issue instructions, orders, and writs to any person or authority, including the government.

According to the apex court bench, after the High Court declined the petitioner’s plea to consider remission under the Gujarat government’s July 9, 1992 policy on remission, he was legally required to challenge the impugned order in appeal before the Supreme Court, instead of directly filing a writ petition.

“Is there any challenge to the Gujarat High Court order? If not, then how did this court get jurisdiction to set aside the July 2019 order?” the bench continued.

The Supreme Court also asked about the legal maintainability of the petition and questioned if the lawyers representing the Gujarat government raised the issue of maintainability before the apex court.

“Did you oppose this writ petition? He had gone to the Gujarat High Court and acted upon the order of the high court by filing for premature release in Maharashtra on August 1, 2019. How was his writ petition entertained by this court? Did not the Gujarat government mention that his writ is not maintainable as he has already accepted remedy under Article 226 [high court’s writ jurisdiction]?” the bench asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, who appeared on behalf of the Gujarat government.

What is wrong with family garlanding rapists?: Govt lawyer in Bilkis Bano case

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing on behalf of one of the PIL petitioners, pointed out the jubilant manner in which the convicts were welcomed after their release.

“[Bano’s rapists] have been garlanded and felicitated. Statements been made that they are Brahmins and can’t commit such crimes. There’s denial that crime was committed,” she said.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju retorted to this statement by saying, “What is wrong with garlanding a family member who comes out of jail?”

The Supreme Court’s deliberations are set to continue, with arguments scheduled for August 9 regarding the locus standi of various individuals who have filed public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the remission.

Bilkis Bano was 21 years old, and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped in a village near Ahmedabad n March 3, 2002. Fourteen members of her family, including her three-year-old daughter, were killed in the violence.

The 11 convicts in the case were released on August 15 last year, which sparked public outrage and a litany of PILs, including those filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, former CPI(M) MP Subhashini Ali, independent journalist Revati Laul, and former vice-chancellor of Lucknow University Roop Rekha Verma.