The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the interim bail pleas filed by two convicts in the Bilkis Bano case- Radheyshyam Bhagwandas and Rajubhai Babulal. Both the petitioners were convicted of raping Bilkis Bano 🌃and killing her family during the 2002 riots in Gujarat's Go🃏dhra.
About the appeal
The two🥀 convicts reportedly sought temporary release till the top court ruled on a fresh remission p🥀lea. It has been reported that the two also filed a petition challenging the court's January verdict that nullified their release by the Gujarat government on Independence Day in 2022.
In their petition, they highlighted an "anomalous" situation where 🎉two different benches of the Supreme Court had opted for diametricalꦰly opposite views on the state government's policy of early release of prisoners.
In today's pleam it was mentioned that in May 2022 one bench directed the state to consider Bhagwandas' plea for early release. However, the bench that delivered the verdict said it was Maharashtra, and not Gujarat, th🌟at was competent to grant remission.
"... if this 🌠is permitted then it would lead not only to judicial impropriety but to uncertainty and chaos as to which precedence (sic) of law has to be applied in future," the plea argued.
The plea sought a direction to the centre to consider the case for premature release and♈ clarify which judgement - May 13, 2022, o💜r January 8, 2024- will be applicable.
What did SC say?
Hearing the plea, Justice Sanjiv Khanna on Fri🌠day said, "What is this plea... how is it even maintainable? Absolutely miscon𝓰ceived... How can we sit on appeal in PIL (public interest litigation)."
"There are two judgments... earlier judgment (the May ruling) was considered in the second (the January verdict) ... under Article 32 (which gives every individual the right to move the Supreme Court for enfor♓cement of fundamental rights) ..."ꦚ he said.
"We are not sittingꦅ in appeal..." the court ruled.
About SC's January Verdict
In it's January judgment, the apex court said the Gujarat government should have sought the revಌiew of May 2022 judgement.
Accordng to the top court the release of the 11 convicts was ordered based on a🧔 1992 remission policy that had been superseded by a 2014 law and sent the 11 convicts back to jail.
