It is disheartening when a judge is forced to say that he understands the intention of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case to escape from their bench in the tactics adopted. The convicts were released last year. Justice KM Joseph’s remark that it was more than clear that the attempt to escape from his bench came in response to adjournment requests from some of the convicts, who claimed that notice of Ms Bano’s petition challenging her release Haven’t found them yet. The request came on a day when the matter was listed for final hearing. One cannot dispute the right of the convicts to be informed of the hearing through proper service of notice, but it would be doubtful that the claim of non-service was made with an ulterior motive. Finally, the bench had to adjourn the hearing till July, well after Justice Joseph’s last working day later this month. The release of 11 convicts serving life sentences for multiple murders and gang rape of women during the 2002 Gujarat pogrom has raised questions about the remission process. It was later learned that the Central Government had given its consent for his release. Justice Joseph had earlier in the hearing wanted to see the relevant files to ascertain whether the decision to release him was based on relevant considerations. The files were not produced on the scheduled day, but the counsel for the Center indicated that both the governments may seek review of the order for production of the files. However, in the latest hearing, the Solicitor General has agreed to produce the records.
It is debatable whether the outcome of a case would have been different had it been heard by a second bench, but it is difficult not to see these developments against the backdrop of the impact that convicts seem to have with the current ruling. They also get a lot of political support from the ruling parties at the center and in the state. His release came as a result of another Supreme Court order, which ruled, somewhat intriguingly, that the Gujarat government was the “appropriate government” to consider his case for remission, and that the remission policy of 1992, in accordance with his sentence, time was applicable. , can be the basis. The outcome of this challenge is of great interest because of the question of jurisdiction to grant remission by Gujarat – the trial took place in Mumbai and the appeal was heard by the Bombay High Court – and the report of a committee on the correctness of the decision to release him prematurely. Which political nominees were involved have become controversial issues.