Bilkis Bano case: SC hears arguments against maintainability of PILs challenging remission to convicts

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard the counsel opposing maintainability of PILs filed against the remission granted to 11 convicts in the case of gang rape of Bilkis Bano and murder of her family members during the 2002 post-Godhra riots.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan continued final hearing for the third consecutive day in the batch of petitions filed against the release of convicts, including the one filed by Bilkis Bano.

During hearing, advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for a convict, opposed the maintainability of public interest litigations, saying that the litigants approached the Supreme Court based on media reports and entertaining their pleas will result in opening of a Pandora’s box.

“Every now and then someone will come up and challenge the remission orders,” he said.

At this, the bench said: “This is not a criminal matter. It is an administrative order. Who can challenge an administrative order, you apply that test.”

Malhotra sought dismissal of PILs adding that the pleas did not annex the remission order being challenged and grounds contained in petitions are “speculative”. He raised questions on directly reaching the Supreme Court by way of filing pleas under Article 32 of the Constitution and said it would be more appropriate had the High Court been approached first.

The Centre, Gujarat government, and convicts have opposed the public interest litigations (PILs) filed by CPI-M leader Subhashini Ali, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, National Federation of Indian Women, Asma Shafique Shaikh and others, saying that once victim herself has approached the court, others may not be allowed to intervene in a criminal matter.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing on behalf of the Centre, argued that remission is reduction of sentence and a PIL cannot be entertained on the question of sentence. “Insofar as the quantum of sentence is concerned, a third party can never have a say,” he said.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, who represented one of the convicts, said that as per the court, the order of remission is an administrative order, but at the same time, the order was passed under CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure). He contended that unnecessary third-party interference in criminal cases cause serious prejudice to the rights of the accused.

The court posted the matter for hearing on Thursday to allow the counsel for PIL litigants to respond to the challenge on maintainability raised by the Centre, state government and convicts.

The 11 men convicted in the case were released on August 15 last year, after the Gujarat government allowed their release under its remission policy. The convicts had completed 15 years in jail.

–IANS