NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain petitions filed by two convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang rape and murder case seeking interim bail and also challenging the apex court’s order setting aside the remission granted to them and nine other convicts in the case.
Radheyshyam Bhagwandas and Rajubhai Babulal, undergoing life imprisonment, challenged SC’s Jan verdict cancelling their remission which forced them to return to jail.They said the apex court’s verdict was contrary to the earlier judgment and their case should be referred to a larger bench. They said a larger bench should clarify which order – May 13, 2022, or Jan 8, 2024 – would be applicable.
A bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said their petition was misconceived and the appeal was filed against its verdict in the garb of a PIL under Article 32. “What is this plea? How is it even maintainable? Absolutely misconceived… How can we sit on appeal in PIL (public interest litigation)?” the bench asked. It further clarified that the Jan verdict had considered the earlier rulings.
SC on Jan 8 had quashed Gujarat govt’s decision to grant remission to 11 convicts who gang-raped Bilkis Bano and killed 14 of her family members in the 2002 communal riots and directed them to surrender before the jail authority, one-and-a-half years after they were granted liberty by the state.
Allowing Bilkis Bano’s plea challenging their remission, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan had found fault not only with Gujarat govt’s decision but also with the order passed by SC in 2022 which triggered the process by directing the state to decide the remission plea of one of the convicts. SC said the state acted on the basis of the direction issued by SC but contrary to the letter and spirit of the law.
Radheyshyam Bhagwandas and Rajubhai Babulal, undergoing life imprisonment, challenged SC’s Jan verdict cancelling their remission which forced them to return to jail.They said the apex court’s verdict was contrary to the earlier judgment and their case should be referred to a larger bench. They said a larger bench should clarify which order – May 13, 2022, or Jan 8, 2024 – would be applicable.
A bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said their petition was misconceived and the appeal was filed against its verdict in the garb of a PIL under Article 32. “What is this plea? How is it even maintainable? Absolutely misconceived… How can we sit on appeal in PIL (public interest litigation)?” the bench asked. It further clarified that the Jan verdict had considered the earlier rulings.
SC on Jan 8 had quashed Gujarat govt’s decision to grant remission to 11 convicts who gang-raped Bilkis Bano and killed 14 of her family members in the 2002 communal riots and directed them to surrender before the jail authority, one-and-a-half years after they were granted liberty by the state.
Allowing Bilkis Bano’s plea challenging their remission, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan had found fault not only with Gujarat govt’s decision but also with the order passed by SC in 2022 which triggered the process by directing the state to decide the remission plea of one of the convicts. SC said the state acted on the basis of the direction issued by SC but contrary to the letter and spirit of the law.