Bilkis Bano Case: Convict Files Article 32 Plea in Supreme Court Over Contradictory Remission Orders

A convict involved in the Bilkis Bano case has filed a plea under Article 32 in the Supreme Court. The plea highlights the contradictory orders issued by two benches of the top court, each comprising two judges, regarding the remission to be determined by Gujarat and Maharashtra. The petitioner argues that the appropriate action should have been to refer the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration.

On January 8, the Supreme Court quashed the Gujarat government’s decision to grant remission to 11 convicts in the case of gangrape of Bilkis Bano and murder of seven of her family members during the 2002 riots in the state.

Holding the PIL challenging the remission as maintainable, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the Gujarat government was not the appropriate government to pass the remission order.

The bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said that the trial was transferred to the state of Maharashtra from Gujarat and it makes the Maharashtra government as the appropriate government. This reverses the order passed by the Gujarat government.

Bilkis Bano Case

In March 2002, amidst the Godhra riots, Bilkis Bano reportedly endured a brutal gang rape and was abandoned with 14 members of her family, including her three-year-old daughter. At the time of the horrific incident, she was 21 years old and five months pregnant, fleeing the violence of the communal riots in Vadodara.

Bilkis Bano, alongside others, approached the Supreme Court, contesting the premature release of 11 convicts. Various Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed, urging the court to issue directives for the annulment of the remission granted to these convicts. The Gujarat government, in its affidavit, had previously defended the remission, asserting that the convicts had served 14 years in prison and exhibited "good behavior."