Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India on 8 January – Navneet Pal

Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India on 8 January, 2024 DATE: 23 AUGUST 2022 

BENCH: BV NAGARATHNA & UJJAL BHUYAN 

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CASE TYPE: WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 491 OF 2022 

PETITIONER: BILKIS YAKUB RASUL 

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 8 JANUARY 2024 

Facts – 

1) The incident took place after Sabarmati massacre, in which around 60 Hindus were  killed. 

2) Sabarmati was a train in which passengers were going for pilgrimage. 3) This train was set on fire when train was in Godhra district. 

4) This incident set fire amongst all Hindus and they started blaming Muslims for the  incident. 

5) Because of that Hindus started attacking Muslims who were there and also in the  neighbourhoods.  

6) To save herself from the attack she along with others, they tried to flee but could not  succeed the girl named Bilkis Bano, who belonged to Muslims community. She was  Gang-raped by the violent mob presence of her husband when she was 21 years old and  5 months pregnant.  

7) The violent mob not only raped her but also killed almost all members of her family in  front of her eyes that included her daughter too. 

8) She borrowed some clothes from an Adivasi woman. 

9) she faced trouble while registering FIR and said the relevant information were skipped  by the police officers. 

10) She went to National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and then to Supreme Court.  11) NHRC helped her by providing her a senior advocate and former solicitor General as  her counsel so that she can defend herself.  

12) 20 men were accused in this case including police officers, 2 doctors and some political  leaders. 

13) At initial stage the police officer refused to logged the FIR and later filed it with no  traces against accused. 

14) The court transferred the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 15) CBI submitted the charge sheet against the accused with the charges of gang-rape, murder and rioting. 

16) The petition was filed by the petitioners seeking that the trial of the case should be fair that’s why it had been transferred from Gujrat to Mumbai.  

17)Mumbai high court convicted to all accused to life imprisonment and later they were  released from the jail on remission by Gujrat high court.

Issued raised :  

1) Was writ petition filed by Bilkis bano under article 32 of the constitution maintainable  ?  

2) Were other petitions filed by petitioner as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) targeting  remission order maintainable ? 

3) Was Gujrat government competent to pass order of remission?  

4) Was order passed in the favour of convicts in according to law ?  

Laws applicable :  

1) Indian penal code ( 302 , 376 (2) , 149 )  

2) Code of criminal procedure (432 , 433 and 433 A )  

3) Constitutional provision (Article 32, 72 and 161 )  

4) Remission policy 1992  

5) 24 A of advocate act 1961  

Analysis:  

Contention of petitioner – 

Advocate shobha Gupta , the counsel of the Bilkis bano on a review petition Said that she  opposed the release of 11 convicts on remission after what they had committed such a horrible  crime against the women and her family . She also argued that the wrong step has been taken  by the Gujrat government to allow these convicts to walk free and give freedom in a such way  . Many other petitions also have been filed by the known persons in the support of Bilkis bano .  

Contention of respondent – 

Advocate sonia mathur , the counsel of the one of the convicts had made several arguments .  

a) Decision is binding to the government not convicts on the release of convicts  on remission . 

b) She also said that the highest compensation given to the victim including  employment and accommodation .  

c) She said that convicts have been released from the jail after fulfilling all the  necessary conditions .  

Rationale :  

Addressing the first issue court held that petition was filed under article 32 to be maintainable  and filing petition is fundamental right under Article 21 and 14 . The Bench noted that Article  32 is meant to enforce the principles of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity outlined in the 

Constitution’s preamble. Considering the importance of access to justice and speedy remedies,  the Bench concluded that Bilkis’ petition could not be dismissed just because an alternative  remedy existed under Article 226. There were the many petition was filed but the weightage of  Bilkis petition would be sufficient in that case and further , on this issue court held that Gujrat  government was not appropriate one who review the application of convicts , as the convicts  were sentenced in the special court of Mumbai so the application should be review under the  jurisdiction of Mumbai. Gujrat government was criticized for issuing remission orders , as it  was not appropriate Government in this case .  

Inference :  

After nullifying the remission orders, the Bench considered the convicts’ argument that their  freedom, maintained for over a year without any misuse, should not be restricted. However, the  Bench dismissed this argument. 

The Bench asserted that violating the rule of law constitutes a denial of equality under Article  14 of the Constitution. The Bench said that the court must be a beacon in upholding the rule of  law, and failing to do so would give the impression that the court is not serious about the rule  of law. This could lead to a dangerous situation where the judiciary applies the law selectively,  undermining the rule of law in our democracy. 

The Bench expressed the view that if the convicts intend to pursue remission in compliance  with the law, they must be incarcerated, as seeking remission is not permissible while on bail  or outside of jail. Accordingly, the Bench instructed the convicts to present themselves to the  jail authorities within two weeks. 

The Bench emphasized that this judgment will have a deep impact for years to come. It has  upheld the value of the rule of law and equality for all, and has placed the social relevance of  the law very high. 

Conclusion: 

In India , laws are not enough to develop fears inside convicts as crimes are increasing at  constant pace . The case Bilkis bano sets an example how law failed to provide justice to victim  for long and failed to put convicts behind the bars . Criticism was faced by the Gujrat  government on release of convicts who had committed the heinous crime , were released on  the 15 August 2022 . They were acquitted because of remission policy of 1992 instead of 2014.  Though new guidelines were also released in the Gujrat and later it was adopted but it was not  applicable in the case of Bilkis bano. 

Reference: 

1) Singh A, “CASE COMMENT: BILKIS YAKUB RASOOL v. UNION OF INDIA – the Amikus Qriae” (The Amikus Qriae, March 6, 2024)  https://theamikusqriae.com/case-comment-bilkis-yakub-rasool-v-union-of-india/ 

2) Kapoor V, “Bilkis Bano Case – iPleaders” (iPleaders, September 14, 2023)  https://blog.ipleaders.in/bilkis-bano-case/