Centre cleared release of Bilkis case convicts, CBI & court opposed: Gujarat
THE GUJARAT government told the Supreme Court on Monday that it decided to release the 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case as they had “completed 14 years and above in prison… their behaviour was found to be good” and the Centre had also “conveyed (its) concurrence/ approval”.
In an affidavit filed in response to the petitions challenging the remission granted to the prisoners, the state also said that the “Superintendent of Police, CBI, Special Crime Branch, Mumbai” and “the Special Civil Judge (CBI), City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay”, had, in March last year, opposed the early release of the prisoners.
In letters to the superintendent of Godhra sub-jail, the CBI official said the offence committed was “heinous, grave and serious” and hence they “cannot be released prematurely and no leniency may be given” to them.
The Civil Judge was also of the view that the Maharashtra government’s 2008 policy should apply as the trial was conducted in Mumbai. “In this case, all the convicted accused were found guilty for rape and murder of innocent people. That the accused had no enemy or any relation with the victim. The crime was committed only on the ground that the victims belong to a particular religion. In this case, even minor children were not spared. This is the worst form of crime against humanity. It affects the conscience of society. The aggrieved is society at large,” the Civil Judge had said.
However, on May 13, 2022, the SC, while deciding a plea filed by one of the convicts, had said the government of Gujarat, where the offence was committed, was the “appropriate government” to decide his prayer for premature release as per Gujarat’s 1992 remission policy. The SC had shifted the trial from Gujarat to Mumbai in 2004, citing “exceptional circumstances”.
The Gujarat government’s affidavit said that as per the 1992 policy, “the Inspector General of Jail is mandated to obtain the opinion of the District Police Officer, District Magistrate, Jail Superintendent and Advisory Board Committee for early release of a convict. Thereafter, the Inspector General of Jail is mandated to give his opinion with the copy of the nominal roll and copy of the judgement and send the recommendation to the government. Further, the Jail Advisory Board at the time of consideration of the premature release application shall be guided by the policy of 1992”.
The state said it had sought the opinion of several authorities – Superintendent of Police, CBI, Special Crime Branch, Mumbai; the Special Civil Judge (CBI), City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay; Superintendent of Police, Dahod; Collector and District Magistrate, Dahod; Jail Superintendent, Godhra sub-jail; Jail Advisory Committee; and Additional Director General of Prisons, Ahmedabad – before arriving at its decision to grant premature release. Barring the first two, all the others recommended their release, it said.
Given that the case was investigated by a central probe agency, the state submitted its recommendation to the Centre, which “conveyed the concurrence/ approval of the Central Government… for premature release of 11 prisoners vide letter dated 11.07.2022”, the affidavit said.
It said the “…state government considered all the opinions and decided to release the 11 prisoners since they have completed 14 years and above in prisons and their behaviour was found to be good”. The state also underlined that the prisoners were granted relief as per its 1992 policy, and “not under the circular governing grant of remission to prisoners as part of Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav”.
Bilkis was gangraped and her three-year-old daughter Saleha was among 14 killed by a mob on March 3, 2002, in Limkheda taluka of Dahod district, during the post-Godhra riots. Bilkis was pregnant at the time.
On August 15, the Gujarat government released all the 11 convicts in the case, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment in 2008, citing a “unanimous” recommendation of the Jail Advisory Committee (JAC) to grant them remission on grounds of “good behaviour”.
Since then, the SC has issued notices to the state government on two petitions — one filed by CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali, journalist Revati Laul and academician Roop Rekha Verma, and the other by TMC MP Mahua Moitra — challenging their release.
The petitioners had argued that the remission was granted without the sanction of the Union government. In their plea, Ali and the two petitioners had said the case was investigated by the CBI and “accordingly, grant of remission solely by the competent authority of a state government/ state of Gujarat…without any consultation with the central government…is impermissible in terms of the mandate of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973”.
In its response, the Gujarat government said the petitioners, “being a third party stranger, have no locus to challenge the remission orders passed by the competent authority”.
“It is well established that PIL is not maintainable in a criminal matter. The petitioner is in no way connected to the proceedings, which either convicted the accused in question or with the proceedings which culminated in the grant of remission to the convicts. Thus, a petition at the instance of a mere busybody which is political machinations is liable to be dismissed”.
The state said that just as a third party stranger cannot question the correctness of granting or refusing sanction for prosecution, or the condition and sentence imposed by a court after regular trial, they cannot also question a remission order passed by the state government in accordance with the law. “None of (the petitioners)… are related whatsoever to the said case and only happen to be either political activist or a third party stranger to the said case,” it said.
