SC agrees to hear PIL challenging release of Bilkis case convicts | India News
[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to expeditiously list a PIL challenging the Gujarat government’s decision to grant en masse remission of sentence to 11 lifers convicted for the murder of 14 people and sexually assaulting women, including Bilkis Banoduring the 2002 post-Godhra riots.
When the PIL by politician and social activist Subhasini Ali, journalist-turned-author Revati Laul and human rights activist Roop Rekha Verma was mentioned by advocate Aparna Bhat, a bench headed by CJI N V Ramana asked whether the remission was granted on the apex court’s orders. Supplementing Bhat’s submissions, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said a bench headed by Justice Ajay Rastogi had only ordered that the rules for remission of sentences, prevalent at the time of conviction of these 11, would apply to them. The convicts were released on August 15 pursuant to a policy resolution of July 9, 1992.
Petitioners: Rearrest Bilkis case convicts immediately
The petitioners challenging the Gujarat government’s decision to grant en masse remission of sentence to 11 lifers convicted for the murder of 14 people and sexually assaulting women, including Bilkis Bano, during the 2002 post-Godhra communal riots, submitted, “We are not questioning the SC decision. We are challenging the rationale and basis on which these persons convicted for 14 murders and sexual assaults on women were granted remission.” The CJI agreed to list the PIL as expeditiously as possible. The petitioners sought immediate rearrest and jailing of the released convicts.
The petitioners said since the crime was investigated by a central agency, the CBIthe Gujarat government could not have unilaterally granted remission of sentence to the convicts without consultation with the home ministry, as is mandated under Section 435 of the the Criminal Procedure Code.
They said the central government’s remission policy of August 15 this year excluded those convicted of rape and those sentenced to imprisonment. This means the 11 sentenced to life for multiple murders and gang rape would not have been eligible for remission benefit had the Gujarat government consulted the Centra, they said.
The petitioners said given the gruesome nature of the crime for which the 11 were convicted, “it would be entirely against public interest and would shock the collective public conscience, as also be entirely against the interests of the victim (whose family has publicly made statements worrying for her safety) to grant remission in such a case”.
It appears from media reports that certain members of the competent authority for grant of remission also bore allegiance to a political party, and were sitting MLAs, the petitioners said. As such, it would appear that the competent authority was not an authority that was entirely independent and one that could independently apply its mind to the facts at hand before granting remission of sentence to people convicted and sentenced to life for heinous offences, they said.
When the PIL by politician and social activist Subhasini Ali, journalist-turned-author Revati Laul and human rights activist Roop Rekha Verma was mentioned by advocate Aparna Bhat, a bench headed by CJI N V Ramana asked whether the remission was granted on the apex court’s orders. Supplementing Bhat’s submissions, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said a bench headed by Justice Ajay Rastogi had only ordered that the rules for remission of sentences, prevalent at the time of conviction of these 11, would apply to them. The convicts were released on August 15 pursuant to a policy resolution of July 9, 1992.
Petitioners: Rearrest Bilkis case convicts immediately
The petitioners challenging the Gujarat government’s decision to grant en masse remission of sentence to 11 lifers convicted for the murder of 14 people and sexually assaulting women, including Bilkis Bano, during the 2002 post-Godhra communal riots, submitted, “We are not questioning the SC decision. We are challenging the rationale and basis on which these persons convicted for 14 murders and sexual assaults on women were granted remission.” The CJI agreed to list the PIL as expeditiously as possible. The petitioners sought immediate rearrest and jailing of the released convicts.
The petitioners said since the crime was investigated by a central agency, the CBIthe Gujarat government could not have unilaterally granted remission of sentence to the convicts without consultation with the home ministry, as is mandated under Section 435 of the the Criminal Procedure Code.
They said the central government’s remission policy of August 15 this year excluded those convicted of rape and those sentenced to imprisonment. This means the 11 sentenced to life for multiple murders and gang rape would not have been eligible for remission benefit had the Gujarat government consulted the Centra, they said.
The petitioners said given the gruesome nature of the crime for which the 11 were convicted, “it would be entirely against public interest and would shock the collective public conscience, as also be entirely against the interests of the victim (whose family has publicly made statements worrying for her safety) to grant remission in such a case”.
It appears from media reports that certain members of the competent authority for grant of remission also bore allegiance to a political party, and were sitting MLAs, the petitioners said. As such, it would appear that the competent authority was not an authority that was entirely independent and one that could independently apply its mind to the facts at hand before granting remission of sentence to people convicted and sentenced to life for heinous offences, they said.
[ad_2]
Source link
