<p>The Supreme Court’s dismissal of a petition seeking a review of the judgement that allowed the Gujarat government to decide the remission of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano rape and murder case went against the expectation that an error in the judgement would be corrected. Bano had filed the petition against the May 2022 order of the court which had held that the Gujarat government was the “appropriate government” to decide on the premature release of the convicts who were serving life terms. A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath has now held that there was “no error apparent on the record” so as to review the May judgement. But the court seems to have overlooked an obvious error in the judgement and a number of precedents when it rejected the review petition. </p>.<p>The Bilkis Bano case was transferred from Gujarat to Maharashtra and the accused were convicted by a trial court in Mumbai. The appeal against the trial court judgement was heard and rejected by the Bombay High Court. Section 432(7) of the CrPC clearly says that the “appropriate government” to decide on remission is “the government of the state within which the offender is sentenced”. The May judgement had held that the transfer of the case was done for “exceptional reasons” and so further matters after trial would return to Gujarat. But the transfer of a case to another state happens only for exceptional reasons. It was because there was no hope of a fair trial in Gujarat that the case was transferred to Maharashtra. This should apply in the case of remission also, and the decision should have been with the Maharashtra government for the same reason for which the case was transferred there. In any case, Section 432(7) is very clear and does not provide for any relaxation in the case of the transfer of trial for “exceptional reasons”.</p>.<p>There are many past orders of the Supreme Court that have held that the government of the state where the trial is held is the "appropriate government" for remission, and not the state where the offence happened. A Constitution Bench of the court, including former Chief Justice of India U U Lalit, said in 2016 in the Sriharan case that “…even if an offence is committed in State A but if the trial takes place and the sentence is passed in State B, it is the appropriate government”. Rejecting Bilkis Bano’s plea, the bench said last week that none of the past judgements “are of any assistance to the review petitioner”. But it has not explained why. It has also been noted that there was a procedural flaw in the May judgement. Unfortunately, the review order did not address these issues.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s dismissal of a petition seeking a review of the judgement that allowed the Gujarat government to decide the remission of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano rape and murder case went against the expectation that an error in the judgement would be corrected. Bano had filed the petition against the May 2022 order of the court which had held that the Gujarat government was the “appropriate government” to decide on the premature release of the convicts who were serving life terms. A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath has now held that there was “no error apparent on the record” so as to review the May judgement. But the court seems to have overlooked an obvious error in the judgement and a number of precedents when it rejected the review petition. </p>.<p>The Bilkis Bano case was transferred from Gujarat to Maharashtra and the accused were convicted by a trial court in Mumbai. The appeal against the trial court judgement was heard and rejected by the Bombay High Court. Section 432(7) of the CrPC clearly says that the “appropriate government” to decide on remission is “the government of the state within which the offender is sentenced”. The May judgement had held that the transfer of the case was done for “exceptional reasons” and so further matters after trial would return to Gujarat. But the transfer of a case to another state happens only for exceptional reasons. It was because there was no hope of a fair trial in Gujarat that the case was transferred to Maharashtra. This should apply in the case of remission also, and the decision should have been with the Maharashtra government for the same reason for which the case was transferred there. In any case, Section 432(7) is very clear and does not provide for any relaxation in the case of the transfer of trial for “exceptional reasons”.</p>.<p>There are many past orders of the Supreme Court that have held that the government of the state where the trial is held is the "appropriate government" for remission, and not the state where the offence happened. A Constitution Bench of the court, including former Chief Justice of India U U Lalit, said in 2016 in the Sriharan case that “…even if an offence is committed in State A but if the trial takes place and the sentence is passed in State B, it is the appropriate government”. Rejecting Bilkis Bano’s plea, the bench said last week that none of the past judgements “are of any assistance to the review petitioner”. But it has not explained why. It has also been noted that there was a procedural flaw in the May judgement. Unfortunately, the review order did not address these issues.</p>
