Bilkis Bano case: Supreme Court Dismisses Gujarat Govt’s Plea Seeking Review

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has rejected the Gujarat government’s petition seeking a review of the verdict cancelling remission granted to 11 men convicted of raping Bilkis Bano and murdering seven of her family members during the 2002 riots in the state.

Gujarat government had approached the top court objecting to certain observations it made against the state in its order on January 8.

“Having carefully gone through the Review Petitions, the order under challenge and the papers annexed therewith, we are satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record or any merit in the Review Petitions, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned. The Review Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed,” a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said on Thursday.

The counsel for Gujarat government argued that Supreme Court had made an “error apparent on the face of the record” in its order by holding the state guilty of “usurpation of power” and “abuse of discretion” for complying with an order of another top court bench. The government said this mistake was obvious based on three main reasons.

Supreme Court ruled on January 8 that Gujarat government did not have the authority to grant remission to 11 convicts, as it could only be done by Maharashtra government, where the trial took place.

Observing that the convicts were “erroneously” set free in “violation of the law”, the apex court struck down the remission and ordered the convicts to surrender.

Bilkis, then 21 and five months pregnant, was gangraped while trying to escape the 2002 riots that followed the Godhra train burning in Gujarat. Seven family members, including her three-year-old daughter, were killed during the attack.

In 2008, 11 men were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. But they were released on August 15, 2022, under Gujarat government’s remission policy.

In its January verdict, the top court noted that it must be a beacon in upholding the rule of law, otherwise it would result “in a dangerous state of affairs in our democracy and democratic polity.”