Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Questioning the maintainability of the writ which challenges the release of the 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, the Gujarat government has told the Supreme Court that third-party strangers are precluded from questioning a remission order passed by the State government which is strictly in accordance with law.
“It is submitted that it is well established that a PIL is not maintainable in a criminal matter. The petitioner is in no way connected to the proceedings that either convicted the accused in question nor with the proceedings which culminated in the grant of remission to the convicts. Thus, a petition at the instance of a mere busybody which has political machinations is liable to be dismissed
State has also told the court that the state had considered the proposal under 1992 policy & not granted it under circular governing grant of remission to prisoners as part of celebration of “Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav”.
It has also been contended that the State Government had considered the opinions of the Inspector General of Prisons, Gujarat State, Jail Superintendents, Jail Advisory Committee, District Magistrate, Police Superintendent, CBI, Special Crime Branch, Mumbai and Hon. Sessions Court, Mumbai (CBI).
In its affidavit filed in September 2022, the convict Radhey Shyam Bhagwandas Shah while also questioning the locus had said that none of the petitioners were related to the case and only happen to be either political activists or a third-party stranger to the case.
“If such types of third-party petitions are entertained by this Hon’ble Court, it would not only unsettle the settled position of law but would also open floodgates and would be an open invitation for any member of the public to jump in any criminal matter before any Court of law,” the affidavit stated.
Justifying the release, the convict has also said that SC in its order dated May 13, 2022 had said that Gujarat government’s policy would be applicable for their remission and had thus directed the State of Gujarat to consider the application for premature release in terms of the policy dated July 9, 1992. Gujarat government’s 1992 policy did not prohibit the remission of rape, gang rape or murder convicts.
The three women’s rights activists including Subhashini Ali had earlier filed a PIL in the Supreme Court to revoke the remission of the 11 convicts involved in the case.
The PIL reportedly said the convicts should not be released as it is a case that involves gang rape and murder. Earlier, over 6,000 people, including activists and historians, urged the Supreme Court to revoke the early release of the convicts in the case. It may be recalled that a five-month pregnant Bano was gang-raped and her three-year-old daughter Saleha was among 14 people killed by a mob in Dahod on March 3, 2002, in communal riots that consumed Gujarat following the death of 59 passengers, mainly ‘Kar Sevaks’, when the Sabarmati Express was set on fire.
NEW DELHI: Questioning the maintainability of the writ which challenges the release of the 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, the Gujarat government has told the Supreme Court that third-party strangers are precluded from questioning a remission order passed by the State government which is strictly in accordance with law.
“It is submitted that it is well established that a PIL is not maintainable in a criminal matter. The petitioner is in no way connected to the proceedings that either convicted the accused in question nor with the proceedings which culminated in the grant of remission to the convicts. Thus, a petition at the instance of a mere busybody which has political machinations is liable to be dismissed
State has also told the court that the state had considered the proposal under 1992 policy & not granted it under circular governing grant of remission to prisoners as part of celebration of “Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav”.
It has also been contended that the State Government had considered the opinions of the Inspector General of Prisons, Gujarat State, Jail Superintendents, Jail Advisory Committee, District Magistrate, Police Superintendent, CBI, Special Crime Branch, Mumbai and Hon. Sessions Court, Mumbai (CBI).
In its affidavit filed in September 2022, the convict Radhey Shyam Bhagwandas Shah while also questioning the locus had said that none of the petitioners were related to the case and only happen to be either political activists or a third-party stranger to the case.
“If such types of third-party petitions are entertained by this Hon’ble Court, it would not only unsettle the settled position of law but would also open floodgates and would be an open invitation for any member of the public to jump in any criminal matter before any Court of law,” the affidavit stated.
Justifying the release, the convict has also said that SC in its order dated May 13, 2022 had said that Gujarat government’s policy would be applicable for their remission and had thus directed the State of Gujarat to consider the application for premature release in terms of the policy dated July 9, 1992. Gujarat government’s 1992 policy did not prohibit the remission of rape, gang rape or murder convicts.
The three women’s rights activists including Subhashini Ali had earlier filed a PIL in the Supreme Court to revoke the remission of the 11 convicts involved in the case.
The PIL reportedly said the convicts should not be released as it is a case that involves gang rape and murder. Earlier, over 6,000 people, including activists and historians, urged the Supreme Court to revoke the early release of the convicts in the case. It may be recalled that a five-month pregnant Bano was gang-raped and her three-year-old daughter Saleha was among 14 people killed by a mob in Dahod on March 3, 2002, in communal riots that consumed Gujarat following the death of 59 passengers, mainly ‘Kar Sevaks’, when the Sabarmati Express was set on fire.
