In Bilkis Bano case On Monday, the Supreme Court overturned the State of Gujarat’s August 2022 ruling of en masse remission given to 11 men who had been given life sentences for the gangrape of Bilkis Bano and the murder of her family, which included a two-month-old baby, during the 2002 riots.
Putting an end to what happened A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a scathing indictment of the ruling BJP government in Gujarat for acting “in tandem” with the prisoners to order their early release after “usurping the power” to do so. The court described the case against Ms.Bilkis Bano case, who was pregnant at the time, and her family as a “grotesque and diabolical crime driven by communal hatred.” The ruling on Monday is a setback for the Centre, which had authorised the men’s early
“A woman is entitled to respect regardless of her social status, religious beliefs, or affiliations. Every woman deserves dignity and respect.” Can the perpetrators of horrific atrocities against women be pardoned by having their sentences reduced or perhaps given the opportunity to go free? The 251-page ruling’s author, Justice Nagarathna, inquired.
he court ordered the men to report back to jail in a fortnight, declining their fervent plea to sympathise with them and not strip their personal liberty away.
“”Can the rule of law cede to the freedom gained as a result of its violation? Is it acceptable to disregard legal violations in order to defend someone’s undeserved freedom? Should the justice system be skewed against the rule of law? According to our Constitution, liberty and all other essential rights will only be upheld when the rule of law is in place. Justice Nagarathna retorted, “The protection of a lucky few does not equate to the rule of law.
News for Bilkis Bano case
Orders status quo In Bilkis Bano Case
Judge Nagarathna ordered the status quo ante, reasoning that the convicted had to be back in jail before they could petition for remission.
In Bilkis Bano caseThe court ruled that Gujarat lacked the authority to pardon the guilty. Regarding the authority to suspend and remit sentences, Justice Nagarathna ruled that Gujarat was not the “appropriate government” in accordance with Section 432(7)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Supreme Court noted that Ms. Bano had been “coerced to live the life of a nomad and an orphan… the gruesome and horrific acts of violence have left an indelible imprint on her mind which will continue to torment and cripple her” and moved the case from Gujarat to Maharashtra in August 2004. In January 2008, the 11 men were found guilty and given life sentences by the CBI Special Judge in Greater Mumbai.
Therefore, the court explained, the “appropriate government” to give remission under Section 432(7)(b) was the State of Maharashtra, where the 11 men were tried and sentenced, and not Gujarat, where the crime had happened or the convicts were imprisoned.
According to Justice Nagarathna in Bilkis Bano case, deception, suppression, and substantial fact misrepresentation were used to get a Supreme Court decision in May 2022 that permitted Gujarat to hear the remission applications of the 11 individuals under the State’s remission policy of 1992.
The judge stated that the 1992 policy had already been revoked. Moreover, Maharashtra was not covered by Gujarat’s remission programme. Furthermore, the fact that the Gujarat High Court had twice ruled that Maharashtra was the appropriate authority was withheld from one of the 11 individuals, Radheyshyam Bhagwandas Shah, who had sued the supreme court in order to obtain the May 2022 order. The Gujarat High Court’s second order from March 2020 had never been contested, recalled, or overturned.
Fine Not Paid
In Bilkis Bano case, the man’s request for an early release was turned down by the CBI, the District Magistrate in Dahod, Gujarat, the Superintendent of Police, and the Special Court in Greater Mumbai that heard the case. The verdict further stated that the guilty had not cared to pay the fine that the Mumbai court had imposed on them. The petitioners, which included Ms. Bano, had contended that the prisoners faced 34 years in prison or a fine of ₹34,000.
Visit My Website here
