In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court overturned the remission granted to convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, emphasizing the paramount importance of upholding the rule of law regardless of potential consequences. The court sternly asserted that compassion and sympathy hold no sway when it comes to enforcing the rule of law.
The 11 individuals, originally sentenced to life imprisonment for their involvement in multiple murders and gang rapes during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, were released by the Gujarat government in August 2022. However, the Supreme Court, in response to a writ petition filed by Bilkis Bano, a survivor of the gang rape, ruled in her favor. The court, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, declared that the State of Gujarat lacked jurisdiction in deciding on remission, as the trial occurred in Maharashtra. Consequently, the remission orders were deemed invalid, and the court directed the convicts to surrender within two weeks.
The court’s deliberation delved into the delicate balance between the rule of law and individual freedom, underscoring the fundamental right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The judges grappled with the complex question of whether personal liberty, obtained through a breach of the law, should prevail over the imperative of upholding the rule of law.
Despite the convicts enjoying months of liberty, the court asserted that once the orders were found to be illegal, the natural consequences must follow. Rejecting arguments by the convicts’ lawyers, the court maintained that Article 142 powers could not be invoked to protect liberty obtained through null and void orders.
The court underscored the judiciary’s role as a beacon in upholding the rule of law, emphasizing that the courts must fulfill their obligations impartially. It highlighted the need for dispassionate, objective, and analytical functioning in accordance with the rule of law. The judgment stressed that the faith of the people in justice and the efficacy of the legal system must be preserved.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the principle that the deprivation of liberty was justified, given the erroneous release of the convicts contrary to the law. The court directed the convicts to surrender within two weeks, emphasizing, “Rule of law must prevail. Since the remission orders are set aside, the natural consequences must follow.”
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
