Bilkis Bano v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Bilkis Bano v. State of Gujarat & Ors., Supreme Court of India (various judgments over the years)

Facts of the case

• Bilkis Bano, a 19-year-old pregnant Muslim lady, was gang-raped on March 3, 2002, in Gujarat’s Randhikpur hamlet.
• 14 members of her family, including her 3-year-old daughter, were cruelly killed.
• She was left comatose and presumed dead, but she recovered and later approached the authorities.
• The initial police investigation was ineffective, and efforts were made to conceal the crime.
• Due to a lack of justice in Gujarat, the Supreme Court shifted the case to Maharashtra in 2004 for a fair trial

Issue before the Court

• Whether Gujarat police authorities conspired to cover up the crime.
• Whether Bilkis Bano deserves recompense for the atrocities done upon her.
• Whether the sentence reductions handed to the offenders in 2022 were legally warranted.
• Mahua Moitra, a Member of Parliament from the Krishnanagar seat in West Bengal, has filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No.326 of 2022, titled Mahua Moitra vs. State of Gujarat, seeking the issuance of a writ, order, or directive to invalidate the Orders dated 10.08.2022. The petitioner in the aforementioned writ petition has also requested that the State Government formulate guidelines and apply existing guidelines fairly for the grant of remission in order to channel the exercise of discretion in granting remission and prevent the misuse of such discretion, if necessary, based on an examination of the existing statutory framework.

Rule of Law Applied

• Section 376(2)(g), IPC – Gang Rape
• Section 302, IPC – Murder
• Section 120B, IPC – Criminal Conspiracy
• Section 201, IPC – Destruction of Evidence
• Articles 21 & 14, Indian Constitution – Right to Life & Equality
• SC Orders on Witness Protection & Fair Trial – Cases involving communal violence

Arguments

Under Secretary, Home Department, State of Gujarat (first respondent) has filed an affidavit saying that he is familiar with the facts of the matter as they appear in the official records of the case. While opposing every assertion, contention, and statement made by the petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.319 of 2022, the first writ petition brought before this Court, some preliminary representations have been advanced from the start.

 It is argued that the petitioners’ (Subhashini Ali and others) public interest litigation (PIL) is neither legally or factually sound. That a third party has no right to challenge the orders of remission issued by a competent authority in the name of a PIL.

A PIL is not maintainable in a criminal matter as the petitioners are in no way connected with the proceedings with which the convicted persons have been granted remission. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed on that ground alone. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’ (VIII) vs. Union of India,

(2006) 6 SCC 613 (“Rajiv Ranjan”); Gulzar Ahmed Azmi vs. Union of India, (2012) 10 SCC 731 (“Gulzar Ahmed”); Simranjit Singh Mann vs. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 653 (“Simranjit Singh”); and, Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349 (“Ashok Kumar”).

Holding (Decision of the Court):

Although we have recorded the detailed submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we do not believe it is necessary to address the question of the maintainability of the PILs in this case because one of the victims, Bilkis Bano, has also filed a writ petition invoking Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge the orders of remission that we have found to be maintainable.

 In this scenario, simply considering the petition on its merits would suffice. As a result, we believe that the matter of the maintainability of the PILs challenging the remission orders in the instant instance does not need us to respond for the reasons stated above.

Dahod now transferred to Additional Sessions Judge of IVth Court of the City Civil Sessions Court Ahmedabad (CBI Case No. RCZ/S/2004, SCB Mumbai) title CBI vs. Jaswantbhai Chaturbhai & Others be transferred to any competent Court in Mumbai for trial and disposal. This order be placed before the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court who shall designate the competent Court as he may deem fit.

The transfer petition is accordingly allowed. The appellant, we are informed, is presently about forty years of age and is without any home and lives with her daughter who was born after the incident.