Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024 INSC 24)

Case Comment:

Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024 INSC 24)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Division Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

CASE DETAILS

Case Number: W.P (Crl) 491/2022

Judgment Delivered On: January 8, 2024

Review Petition Dismissed On: September 26, 2024

 PARTIES

Petitioners: Bilkis Bano, Subhashini Ali, Roop Rekha Verma, Revati Laul

Lawyers: Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, Vrinda Grover, and others.

Respondent: State of Gujarat

Lawyers: S.V. Raju (Additional Solicitor General) and Senior Advocates Sonia Mathur, Sidharth Luthra, and Rishi Malhotra.

Facts of the Case

1. In the aftermath of the 2002 Gujarat riots, Bilkis Bano — a young, pregnant Muslim woman — was brutally gangraped by a mob in Randhikpur village, Gujarat. On March 3, 2002, while fleeing the violence with her family, she was attacked. Seven of her family members, including her 3-year-old daughter, were murdered.
2. Initially, the Gujarat police failed to take her complaint seriously. The FIR was poorly drafted, and many of the names of the attackers were omitted. Due to threats and fear of injustice, Bilkis approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which helped her take the matter to the Supreme Court. The SC ordered a CBI investigation, and in 2004, the case was transferred to Mumbai to ensure a fair trial.
3. In 2008, a special CBI court convicted 11 men and sentenced them to life imprisonment. This conviction was later upheld by the Bombay High Court in 2017.
4. In 2022, one of the convicts, Radheshyam Shah, filed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking early release under Gujarat’s 1992 Remission Policy. Though Gujarat initially opposed it, saying it lacked jurisdiction since the conviction was by a Maharashtra court, the Supreme Court directed Gujarat to consider the application.
5. On August 15, 2022 — India’s Independence Day — the Gujarat government released all 11 convicts, citing “good conduct.” This triggered national outrage, especially since:
6. Some convicts hadn’t served the minimum 14 years in prison.
7. Several had violated parole conditions.
8. At least one was involved in another criminal case during parole.
9. Bilkis Bano, along with civil society members (Subhashini Ali, Roop Rekha Verma, and Revati Laul), challenged this decision in the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the writ petition filed by Bilkis Bano was maintainable?

2. Whether third-party PILs against the remission were valid? 

3. Whether Gujarat was the appropriate government to decide on remission? 

4. Whether the remission of all 11 convicts was legally and procedurally sound?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners’ Contentions:

1. Gujarat lacked jurisdiction: Since the trial and conviction happened in Maharashtra under a CBI court, only the Maharashtra government was legally authorized to consider remission under Section 432(7) of the CrPC.
2. Illegal and mechanical remission: The release of all 11 convicts at once was arbitrary and did not follow any fair or individualized assessment.
3. Policy conditions not fulfilled: Many convicts had not completed the mandatory 14 years in prison, which was a precondition under the 1992 Gujarat Remission Policy.
4. Poor conduct record: The state’s claim of “good conduct” was false, as some convicts had broken parole terms and one was even accused of molestation during parole.
5. Lack of consultation with the Centre: As the CBI is a central agency and the case was tried in a CBI court, Gujarat should have consulted the Union Government before making any decision.
6. Remission violated public interest: Given the gravity of the crime — gangrape and mass murder during a communal riot — releasing the convicts sent a dangerous message to society and undermined public trust in justice.

Respondent’s Contentions:

1. Acted on SC’s direction: Gujarat argued that it only considered the remission application because the Supreme Court (in May 2022) had directed it to do so.
2. Policy-based release: The government claimed it followed the 1992 Gujarat Remission Policy and considered factors such as good behavior in jail, age, health, and family situation.
3. Good conduct in prison: Authorities claimed the convicts had behaved well during their imprisonment, making them eligible for early release.
4. Executive discretion: Remission, the state argued, is a matter of executive discretion, and courts should not interfere unless there is clear illegality.
5. No procedural violation: Gujarat claimed it followed all the necessary steps in granting remission and that there was no need to consult Maharashtra or the Union Government.

Judgment / Final Decision

1. The Court held the remission orders illegal and declared Gujarat incompetent to grant the remission.
2. Held that the Maharashtra Government alone had jurisdiction under Section 432 of CrPC.
3. Directed re-arrest of the released convicts.
4. Dismissed the Gujarat government’s  review petition, upholding critical observations on abuse of discretion and “tandem” action with convicts.

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

1. Jurisdictional Incompetence: The Court applied Section 432(7) CrPC to determine the “appropriate government” as Maharashtra since the trial was held there.
2. Misuse of Power: The Court criticized Gujarat for “usurping” jurisdiction and acting arbitrarily by mechanically granting remission to all 11 convicts.
3. Public Trust and Rule of Law: The verdict reinforced that remission in heinous crimes must be exercised with extreme caution and transparency.
4. Cited prior judgments on remission, including Union of India v. V. Sriharan and State of Haryana v. Jagdish.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India is an important step towards justice, fairness, and accountability. It rightly held that the Gujarat government did not have the legal authority to release the 11 men convicted of gangrape and murder during the 2002 Gujarat riots. Since the trial was held in Maharashtra by a CBI court, only the Maharashtra government had the power to decide on remission.

The Court also pointed out that the Gujarat government acted wrongly by releasing all the convicts at once, without looking at each case individually. It found that the decision was rushed, mechanical, and showed signs of favoritism, especially since some of the convicts had broken parole conditions and had not even completed the required 14 years in prison.

By striking down the remission, the Court stood firmly with the rule of law and the rights of victims. It reminded governments that remission is not a right, but a serious responsibility that must be exercised carefully and lawfully. The Court’s dismissal of the review petition also showed its strong stand against misuse of power.

This case sends a strong message: justice must not only be done but also seen to be done — especially in cases involving grave crimes like gangrape and mass murder. It gives hope to victims and strengthens faith in the justice system.