New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday expressed exasperation as lawyers appearing for some of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape-cum-murder case disputed the contents of an affidavit filed by her regarding service of court summons to them.
A bench of justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathana was hearing Bano’s petition challenging the Gujarat government’s decision allowing the premature release of 11 convicts who were sentenced to life imprisonment in the case.
Seeking adjournment, the lawyers for two convicts alleged that Bano had filed a false affidavit in court claiming that they had declined to accept the notice. They said that the official report shows that the said persons were out of station when the postal department went to serve the notices.
While hearing the matter, Joseph told the respondents’ lawyers, “It is clear what is being attempted here. I will retire on 19 June. Since that is during the vacation, my last working day is Friday, 19 May. It is obvious you do not want this bench to hear the matter. But this is not fair to me. We had made it absolutely clear that the matter will be heard for final disposal. You are officers of the court. Do not forget that role. You may win a case, or lose one. But don’t forget your duty to this court.”
The convicts’ lawyers levelled allegations against Bano for “playing fraud with the court” and demanded criminal action against her under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Terming the objections by the convicts’ lawyer as a “blatant machination to interrupt justice”, Bano’s lawyer rejected the allegations, and urged the court to hear the matter.
However, the respondents’ lawyers objected to the court’s attempt to let the petitioners begin their submissions, saying they had not been given adequate time to file their responses.
Faced with these objections, the court gave the convicts time till 9 May to file their responses and allowed service of the notice to the ones who have not yet received it.
The court said that on 9 May, it would look into housekeeping issues such as completion of pleadings, which includes filing of responses by all the convicts. It adjourned the hearing till July.
Bilkis Bano’s petition is one of the six pleas that have sought setting aside of the Gujarat government’s remission order. 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.
Also Read: Bilkis Bano case convicts controversy: Why the 11 were released under ‘old’ 1992 policy
Justice Joseph’s retirement & reconstitution of bench
Justice Joseph is due to retire on 16 June and a new bench would have to be constituted to hear the case in July.
The bench offered to sit during the summer break for attending the case.
While Bilkis Bano and other petitioners agreed to argue the matter during the break, the respondents’ lawyers declined the court’s proposal.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Centre and Gujarat government, said he would not prefer to argue any matter during the vacations. A similar request was made by lawyers of some convicts.
As the hearing commenced at 2 pm Tuesday, one of the lawyers appearing for convicts raised preliminary objection to the petitions filed by Ali, Moitra and others and urged the bench to first decide on their locus standi.
Mehta too made a similar plea and said the state and central governments were ready to argue on Bilkis Bano’s petition, but not on others.
Regarding the notices, the bench told the lawyers to accept them in the court, to which one of the convicts’ lawyers replied: “I will take notice, but I will require time to file my response.”
The counsel further said the court must take into account that Bano has “misled” the court and insisted that action be taken against her.
However, Bano’s lawyer refuted the charge and told the court that she had informed the lawyers for the convicts about the court notice on her petition via email also.
The case so far
In 2002, Bilkis Bano was 21 years old when she was gangraped in Dahod district of Gujarat during the post-Godhra communal violence. 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.
On 18 April, the SC had fixed the hearing of the matter on 2 May after both the central and Gujarat governments sought an adjournment on the ground that they would file a review against the court’s 27 March order.
On 27 March, the court had directed the respondents to place before it files related to decisions taken on premature release of the convicts.
On Tuesday, the court was informed that the central and state government would not seek reconsideration of the court’s 27 March order.
(Edited by Anumeha Saxena)
Also Read: ‘No error apparent’ — SC rejects Bilkis Bano’s review plea against premature release of 11 convicts