A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case involves a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by Bilkis Yakub Rasool, a victim of heinous crimes, challenging the remission and early release of eleven convicts by the State of Gujarat. The convicts were sentenced for gang rape, murder, and rioting during the Gujarat riots in 2002. The petitioner argues the State of Gujarat lacked jurisdiction to grant remission, as the trial had been transferred to Mumbai, placing jurisdiction with the State of Maharashtra. The Supreme Court considered the issues of jurisdiction, competence of the State of Gujarat to grant remission, and whether the remission was in accordance with law. The court emphasized the rule of law, holding that the State of Gujarat usurped powers, rendering the remission orders invalid. The court directed the convicts to return to custody, reinforcing that justice and adherence to legal standards must guide remission decisions, especially in cases involving grievous offenses.

Keywords: Remission, Rule of Law, Gujarat Riots, Heinous Crimes, Article 32, Jurisdiction, Judicial Review, Competence of State, Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Others

ii) Case Number:
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 491 of 2022

iii) Judgement Date:
08 January 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

vi) Author:
Justice B.V. Nagarathna

vii) Citation:
2024 INSC 24; [2024] 1 S.C.R. 743

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 432, 433, 433A, 435; Constitution of India – Articles 32, 226

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
Judgment dated 13.05.2022 (Specific directive for Gujarat State to consider remission)

x) Case is Related to Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The writ petition challenges the Gujarat Government’s order granting remission and early release to 11 convicts involved in the 2002 Gujarat riots under the 1992 Remission Policy. The primary grounds for the challenge rest on the contention that the State of Gujarat lacked jurisdiction over remission, as the case was transferred to Maharashtra, designating Maharashtra as the “appropriate government.” The court scrutinized the judicial propriety of the State of Gujarat’s actions and assessed whether Gujarat followed the CrPC’s procedural mandates on remission, specifically seeking judicial input and respecting jurisdictional boundaries.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Following the 2002 Gujarat riots sparked by the Godhra train burning incident, Bilkis Yakub Rasool and her family members suffered brutal violence. Bilkis, pregnant at the time, endured gang rape while many family members were murdered. An FIR was registered, and despite an initial closure report due to untraceable accused, the Supreme Court ordered a CBI investigation, leading to the conviction of 11 perpetrators, sentenced to life imprisonment in Mumbai.

The convicts sought remission in 2022, leading the Supreme Court to mistakenly direct Gujarat to consider their application under its 1992 Policy. Subsequently, Gujarat granted remission, triggering the present writ petitions challenging the remission on grounds of jurisdictional incompetency and violations of legal process.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the petition filed by a victim under Article 32 challenging remission was maintainable.
2. Whether the State of Gujarat had the jurisdiction to pass remission orders.
3. Whether the remission orders passed by Gujarat complied with Sections 432-435 of the CrPC.
4. Validity of PILs challenging remission orders based on public interest considerations.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The petitioner’s counsel argued that:

1. The State of Gujarat lacked jurisdiction to grant remission, as the trial was held in Maharashtra after a Supreme Court-ordered transfer.
2. Section 432(7) CrPC designated Maharashtra as the appropriate government for remission applications, which Gujarat violated by assuming authority.
3. The remission violated procedural norms under Section 432(2), as the opinion of the Presiding Judge in Mumbai was not sought.
4. The 1992 Remission Policy was inapplicable, given the heinous nature of the crime and its non-compliance with mandatory legal procedures.
5. The petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 were compromised, calling for judicial intervention.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

Respondents’ counsel submitted that:

1. The State of Gujarat acted within its rights, interpreting the 1992 Remission Policy as applicable.
2. The Supreme Court’s 13.05.2022 order validated Gujarat’s authority, and no procedural violations occurred.
3. The remission process was a legitimate exercise of administrative discretion, not infringing on any judicial precedents.
4. Any challenge to the remission policy’s validity should focus on broader legislative frameworks, not individual cases, as public interest was not directly impacted by this specific remission.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

  • Section 432 – Power of Government to suspend or remit sentences
  • Section 433 – Power to commute sentences
  • Section 433A – Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases
  • Section 435 – Consultation with central government before remission in specific cases

• Constitution of India

  • Article 32 – Remedies for enforcement of rights
  • Article 226 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

I) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the State of Gujarat was not the appropriate government to grant remission, as jurisdiction rested with Maharashtra, per Section 432(7) of the CrPC. The 1992 Policy was inapplicable due to the heinous nature of the crimes, and Gujarat’s failure to obtain judicial opinion constituted a procedural violation. The remission orders were quashed, with directives for the convicts to return to jail.

b. Obiter Dicta

The court emphasized that remission policies must not undermine victims’ rights and societal safety. It further noted the importance of ensuring judicial oversight in remission processes, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes.

c. Guidelines

1. Jurisdictional Adherence: Only the government within the trial jurisdiction should consider remission applications.
2. Mandatory Judicial Opinion: Remission must involve input from the sentencing court.
3. Review Mechanism: State actions on remission should be legally grounded, transparent, and periodically reviewed.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforced judicial standards on remission policies, especially for heinous crimes. It underscored the importance of jurisdictional respect and judicial oversight in remission decisions to ensure public safety and justice for victims.

J) REFERENCES

• Important Cases Referred

  • Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147
  • Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1
  • State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216
  • Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 8 SCC 552

• Important Statutes Referred

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 432, 433, 433A, 435
  • Constitution of India – Articles 32, 226