'Public Outcry Won't Affect Judicial Decisions': SC On Bilkis Bano Case

A panel comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan has unequivocally stated that public demonstrations and societal uproar will not wield influence over their judicial determinations. Emphasizing a strict adherence to legal parameters, the bench underscored that their decisions will solely be guided by the tenets of the law.

In a steadfast declaration, the bench proclaimed that the court's considerations would be exclusively rooted in legal submissions, disassociating itself from the sway of public sentiment, particularly concerning the incident in question. The bench posed a contemplative inquiry, questioning whether the correctness of an order hinges on the presence or absence of public outcry.

"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 order? If there is a public outcry, does it mean it is a wrong order?” the bench told advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for Bilkis Bano.

These pronouncements were prompted by advocate Shobha Gupta, representing Bilkis Bano, who contended that public outcry serves as a pivotal factor in granting convicts remission. Gupta argued that a society-wide uproar had ensued following the release of the convicts in the case, marked by nationwide protests and demonstrations.

At the onset of the hearing, Bilkis Bano's counsel apprised the apex court that the Additional Director General of Police, Prisons and Correctional Administration of Gujarat had expressed reservations against granting remission to the convicts. Notably, the recommendation against the premature release of Radheshyam Shah was particularly highlighted.

During the course of proceedings, it was revealed that Radheshyam Shah had sought early release under the remission policy instituted by the Gujarat government on July 9, 1992. Subsequent to the rejection of his plea by the Gujarat High Court, he pursued recourse by submitting a writ petition before the apex court.

The court raised a pertinent question regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, considering Shah's prior engagement with Article 226 – a provision bestowing high courts with authority to issue instructions and writs to individuals and authorities, including governmental bodies, as per a report in News18.

Radheshyam Shah's petition for remission was predicated on the completion of 15 years and 4 months of incarceration, stemming from his life imprisonment sentence pronounced by a Mumbai CBI court in 2008. In accordance with the rules prevailing at the time, a convict could request remission after serving 14 years, deemed the duration of life imprisonment.

Release Of 11 Convicts

In response to Shah's plea, the apex court had directed the Gujarat government to evaluate the matter and make a determination within a two-month span regarding the feasibility of granting remission.

Highlighting the aftermath of this directive, Gupta asserted that the apex court's order expedited the release of all convicts on August 15, 2022.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing one of the PILs, recalled the events that followed the convicts' release. She recounted how the convicts were hailed and honored upon their release, accompanied by assertions about their innocence based on their Brahmin status, which, she argued, cast aspersions on the judicial process.

In response, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju countered that the garlanding of the released convicts was executed by their family members, positing that such actions were not inherently problematic.

In light of the Tuesday hearing, the apex court slated arguments for August 9, focusing on the locus standi of various parties who have filed PILs in the Bilkis Bano gang-rape case. Alongside Bilkis Bano's plea, a cluster of PILs, including submissions from figures like CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali, independent journalist Revati Laul, and former Lucknow University vice-chancellor Roop Rekha Verma, have contested the remission. Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra has also lodged a PIL opposing the remission.

Representing one of the convicts, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra contended that the presence of the victim in court could potentially negate the standing of others to intervene in such proceedings.

During the initial hearing, the apex court delved into the details of the heinous Bilkis Bano gang-rape case, wherein she and her family endured the harrowing ordeal during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The court expressed its concern about the convicts' premature release and the leniency displayed, suggesting that the severity of the offense should have been factored into the decision-making process.

The apex court urged for a proportional alignment between the remission granted and the gravity of the crime committed, emphasizing that such gestures should be reflective of a judicious application of justice. The court's scrutiny also extended to the uniformity of standards applied in comparison to other murder cases, underscoring the significance of equity and consistency in the justice system.

Recalling the tragic circumstances of Bilkis Bano's gang rape and the tragic loss of her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots, the court probed whether equivalent standards were maintained while deliberating on the remission granted to the convicts. Bilkis Bano, pregnant and only 21 years old at the time, was gang raped while fleeing the communal violence that erupted after the Godhra train-burning incident. Her family was subjected to further tragedy, with her three-year-old daughter among the seven lives claimed during the riots.

The eleven convicts who secured premature release include Jaswantbhai Nai, Govindbhai Nai, Shailesh Bhatt, Radheshyam Shah, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Kesarbhai Vohania, Pradeep Mordhiya, Bakabhai Vohania, Rajubhai Soni, Mitesh Bhatt, and Ramesh Chandana.

Also Read: WHO Issues Alert Over Another Indian- Made Cough Syrup, Raises Quality Concerns