New Delhi: The Centre and the Gujarat government Tuesday claimed privilege over the files relating to the grant of remission to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape and murder case, saying they intended to seek a review of the Supreme Court’s 27 March order that directed both to be ready with the documents.
Additional Solicitor General V.S. Raju, who appeared for the Centre and Gujarat, told a bench of justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna that both were planning to file review petitions.
This prompted the bench to question their reservations in sharing the contents of the remission order with the judges, with Justice Joseph observing: “If you don’t show us, then we will draw our own conclusion. You are in contempt if you haven’t produced it. Why are you shying away?”
The bench was hearing petitions against the premature release of the convicts, including the one filed by Bano herself.
The judges asked the law officer what was there to hide if a legal decision (to file the review) was taken. Raju, however, said a decision on filing the review was yet to be taken.
Though the court gave time till 2 May to the Centre and state to decide on the review aspect, it emphasised the crime in question was a “horrendous” act and that the Gujarat government should have “shown application of mind” while allowing premature release of the convicts.
Seeking to know the reasons behind the release order, the judges told Raju that Gujarat should not have agreed just because the Centre approved the convicts’ remission.
“The question is whether the government applied its mind, what formed the basis of its decision. Today it is this lady (Bilkis), tomorrow it can be you or me. If you don’t give us the reason, we will draw our own conclusion,” the bench observed.
The court made this comment as the Gujarat government has claimed the decision to grant remission to the convicts was taken after the Centre gave its nod.
The central government’s permission came after it considered the good behaviour of the convicts and the completion of 14 years of sentence by them.
During the hearing, the bench also said when remission is considered in a heinous crime — which affects the society — power must be exercised keeping in mind public interest.
The bench referred to an earlier SC verdict that laid down the law on remission under which there was a requirement to spell out reasons for the grant of remission.
The judges also took strong exception to the “delaying tactics” adopted by the accused. At the outset, the convicts’ counsel sought more time to respond. This attracted a strong response from the petitioners who objected to the request.
This led Justice Nagarathna to observe: “Every time there is a hearing, one accused will come to this court and seek adjournment. Four weeks later, another accused will do the same and this will go on till December. We are aware of this strategy as well.”
The court even commented on the 1,000-plus days of parole that was granted to each convict while they were serving their jail term. It questioned the Gujarat government over which “policy” it had been following. “You cannot compare a case of murder with the case of mass murder. Will you compare apples and oranges,” Justice Joseph observed.
Advocate Siddhartha Luthra, appearing for one of the convicts, informed the court that the court was dealing with a case where “the men have been in custody for more than 15 years”.
Also read:‘Love is love’ vs ‘assault on family’: Constitution bench takes up pleas on same-sex marriage today