Bilkis case: Top court rejects Gujarat’s plea seeking review of ‘adverse’ remarks

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the Gujarat government’s plea seeking a review of its verdict.

That cancelled the remission granted to 11 men convicted of raping Bilkis Bano and murdering seven of her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The government challenged certain observations made by the top court in the January 8 verdict, arguing that such ‘adverse’ remarks could not be drawn against the state.

The Gujarat government argued that the Supreme Court, in its order, made an “error apparent on the face of the record”, by holding the state guilty of “usurpation of power” and “abuse of discretion” for complying with an order of another top court bench. The government said this mistake was obvious based on three main reasons.

“No adverse inference of ‘usurpation of power’ can be drawn against the state of Gujarat for not filing a review petition against the judgment dated May 13, 2022 (of the coordinate bench),” the review plea said.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, rejecting the contention, said “Having carefully gone through the Review Petitions, the order under challenge and the papers annexed therewith, we are satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record or any merit in the Review Petitions, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned”.

Bilkis Bano was 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped while fleeing the 2002 Gujarat riots that followed the Godhra train burning. Her three-year-old daughter was among seven family members killed during the attack.

In 2008, 11 men were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, they were released on August 15, 2022, under the Gujarat government’s remission policy.

On January 8, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the Gujarat government lacked the authority to grant remission, as it could only be done by the Maharashtra government, where the trial took place. The Court struck down the remission and ordered the convicts to surrender.

The top court observed that the convicts were “erroneously” set free in “violation of the law”. It also noted that the court must be a beacon in upholding the rule of law otherwise it would result “in a dangerous state of affairs in our democracy and democratic polity”.