New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday directed publication of notices to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape-cum-murder case in newspapers to ensure that all of them are served and informed about the hearing on petitions challenging their premature release.
The 11 convicts had been sentenced to life imprisonment but were released prematurely by the Gujarat government on 15 August 2022 under the state’s remission policy. Several public interest litigations (PILs), including Bano’s, were filed subsequently, seeking that the release order be set aside. A batch of five such petitions is currently being heard by the court.
On Tuesday, a three-judge bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph observed that it was issuing the direction for newspaper publication of notices so that the matter is heard in July and none of the convicts — named as respondents in the petitions against their release — make the contention that they weren’t served or intimated about the case in the top court.
The other two judges on the bench are Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
The SC’s direction came after the bench was told that one of the 11 convicts named in Bano’s petition against their release remained unserved, despite an earlier court order to serve him.
According to a report submitted by the apex court registry, the convict was not at his residence when local police went to serve the notice.
In three more related petitions, it was found that some of the 11 convicts are yet to be served court notices about the petitions against their release.
Non-service of court summons upon the respondents has been a primary reason why the bench has not been able to commence a proper hearing in the matter.
So far, the court has not been able to sort out the housekeeping issues, such as service of its notices, filing of responses and rejoinder in the case. Out of six petitions, service of notice has been completed only in one.
Even though the 11 convicts are officially represented in one petition, their counsel have demanded that according to apex court rules, unless they are served in other petitions, the court cannot proceed with the hearing.
Directing that all the petitioners shall again take steps under the apex court rules to effect fresh service on the unserved convicts, the court said they shall also simultaneously publicise the court notice through a public notice in two Gujarati newspapers that have circulation in the area where the respondents reside.
“Each petitioner shall take out an individual public notice,” the bench clarified, as it asked the SC registry to intimate the petitioners’ lawyers within three days about details of unserved respondents.
The notice, it added, should indicate the next date of hearing in the matter, which is 11 July.
Also read: Bilkis Bano case convicts controversy: Why the 11 were released under ‘old’ 1992 policy
‘Court can relax requirements’
During the arguments, Bano’s lawyer, Shobha Gupta, submitted that notices had been served to both the respondents (convicts) whose advocates had on the earlier date (2 May) strongly objected to the bench’s attempt to begin hearing of her petition on the ground they had not received court summons and were, therefore, unable to respond to her petition.
Gupta said even though the report submitted by the SC registry showed that one of the two was not present at home to receive the summons, the police had pasted the notice outside his house. This, she contended, should be treated as service of the notice.
Gupta drew the court’s attention to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) that allows for service in this manner. She also cited the SC rule which entitles a bench to relax any requirement in the rules.
This particular case, Gupta told the bench, was fit for the court to exercise its discretionary power to relax the rules mandating service of court notice.
However, the bench opined that it would prefer to make sure all the respondents receive the court summons or are adequately informed about the proceedings pending in the court, so that no excuses are made in future to delay the hearing.
On the last date of hearing on 2 May, there was an uproar in the court when the bench indicated it was ready to begin with the case. The lawyers for the respondents wanted the bench to first rule on their objections against the locus standi of the five other petitioners. They wanted the court to only entertain Bano’s plea.
The other petitioners in the case are Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Subhashini Ali, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and others, whom the convicts have called “third-party” interests in the case and have disputed their locus standi to file a petition against their release.
Moreover, the lawyers for the two convicts who claimed they were not given notices demanded that the procedure must be followed before the court proceeds with the matter. This left the bench exasperated, as it told the counsel “it is obvious you don’t want this bench to hear the matter”.
Bano was 21 years old, and pregnant, when she was gangraped in Dahod district of Gujarat during the post-Godhra communal violence in 2002. Seven of her family members — including her three-year-old daughter — were also killed by the rioters.
The trial of the case was transferred to a special court in Mumbai, which in 2008 convicted the accused and handed them life imprisonment.
In May 2017, the Bombay High Court upheld the trial court’s order while rejecting the appeal filed by the accused. The 11 convicts walked out of jail on 15 August, 2022, following the Gujarat government’s acceptance of their remission application.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)