Case Summary: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors

1. Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors
2. Citation: 2024 INSC 24; Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022 (and connected matters)
3. Court: Supreme Court of India
4. Bench: B.V. Nagarathna, J. (author), and Ujjal Bhuyan, J. — Division Bench
5. Date of Judgment: 8 January 2024
6. Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions:

• Constitution of India: Articles 14, 21, 32, 72 and 161;
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 432, 433, 433A, and in particular Section 432(7) (“appropriate Government”);
• Government remission policies (notably the Gujarat Remission Policy, 9 July 1992).

Brief Facts

During the communal violence in Gujarat in 2002, the petitioner, Ms. Bilkis Yakub Rasool (popularly known as Bilkis Bano), was gang‑raped and several members of her family, including her three‑year‑old daughter, were murdered. On the Supreme Court’s directions, the investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). For ensuring a fair trial, this Court shifted the trial from Gujarat to the State of Maharashtra. In 2008, a Special CBI Court in Mumbai convicted eleven accused and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The Bombay High Court later affirmed the conviction and sentence. Thereafter, in August 2022, the Government of Gujarat passed orders granting remission to all eleven convicts under its 1992 policy and released them from prison. The remission orders were passed after a prior order of the Supreme Court dated 13 May 2022 in a writ petition by one of the convicts had directed the State of Gujarat to consider his plea for remission under its 1992 policy. In response, Ms. Rasool and several other petitioners approached the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the Gujarat Government’s remission orders and the jurisdictional basis on which they were made.

Issues Involved

• Whether the petitioner’s writ petition under Article 32 was maintainable despite the availability of other remedies.
• Whether the State of Gujarat was the “appropriate Government” under Section 432(7) CrPC competent to consider and grant remission to the convicts, given that trial, conviction and sentence occurred in Maharashtra.
• Whether the remission orders dated 10 August 2022 were lawful on the merits, including compliance with mandatory procedural considerations (such as seeking the opinion of the presiding judge of the convicting court).
• What was the legal effect of this Court’s earlier order dated 13 May 2022 in a convict’s petition directing Gujarat to consider remission under its 1992 policy; and whether that order stood vitiated by suppression/misrepresentation of material facts.
• Consequential reliefs—if the remission orders were quashed, whether the convicts were required to surrender and return to prison.

Arguments

Petitioners (including Ms. Rasool):

• The writ petitions were maintainable under Article 32 as they sought enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.
  • Gujarat lacked jurisdiction to decide remission because the ‘appropriate Government’ within the meaning of Section 432(7) is the Government of the State in which the offender was sentenced—here, Maharashtra.
  • The Gujarat authorities ignored mandatory inputs, including the opinion of the presiding judge of the convicting court and the views of the CBI, and otherwise exercised discretion arbitrarily.
  • The May 2022 order was procured by misleading the Court about which State was competent to consider remission.

Respondents (State of Gujarat, Union of India, and the convicts):

• The petitions were not maintainable; the proper course was to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.
  • The convicts satisfied the parameters of the 1992 Gujarat remission policy; after over 15 years in custody, their premature release was justified.
  • Section 432(7) could be read to permit Gujarat to act as the appropriate Government because the offences took place in Gujarat and the prosecuting agency was Gujarat, notwithstanding the transfer of trial to Maharashtra.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the petitions and set aside the remission orders dated 10 August 2022. It directed the eleven convicts to surrender within two weeks. The Court held that the petitions were maintainable under Article 32. On jurisdiction, it held that the ‘appropriate Government’ under Section 432(7) CrPC was the Government of Maharashtra since the trial, conviction and sentence took place in Mumbai. The Gujarat Government, therefore, had no authority. The Court also held that its earlier May 2022 order was obtained by misrepresentation and was a nullity. Further, on merits, it found Gujarat had ignored mandatory considerations, including the opinion of the presiding judge of the convicting court and the CBI, rendering its orders arbitrary.

Ratio Decidendi

• Under Section 432(7) CrPC, the ‘appropriate Government’ for considering remission is the Government of the State where the offender was tried, convicted and sentenced.
• Judicial orders obtained by fraud or suppression are nullities in law.
• Remission must be exercised according to law, considering mandatory inputs such as the opinion of the convicting court’s presiding judge.

Obiter Dicta

The Court reflected on the centrality of Article 21 but emphasised that personal liberty cannot rest on an order passed by an incompetent authority. It also reiterated that while reformation is a valid ground for remission, it must comply with correct jurisdiction and procedure.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court quashed the remission orders dated 10 August 2022 passed by the Gujarat Government and directed all eleven convicts to surrender to prison within two weeks. It held that only the State of Maharashtra was competent to consider remission applications in this case.

References 

• Bilkis Yakub Rasool v Union of India & Ors, 2024 INSC 24 (Supreme Court of India, 8 January 2024).
• Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, ss 432–433A.
• Constitution of India, arts 14, 21, 32, 72, 161.
• ‘Early release of Bilkis Bano gangrape convicts | Judgement Summary’ Supreme Court Observer (10 January 2024) <https://scobserver.in>.
• Awstika Das, ‘Supreme Court Sets Aside Remission Of 11 Convicts In Bilkis Bano Case’ LiveLaw (8 January 2024) <https://livelaw.in>.