In a major revelation, the Gujarat Government on Monday stated in the Supreme Court that the August 15 decision to release the 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case had the approval of the Central Government.
The Gujarat govt stated that the convicts were let off on completion of 14 years sentence since their "behavior was found to be good."
The State Government also stated that the decision was according to the government of July 9, 1992, “as directed” by the Supreme Court and not "under the circular (this year) governing grant of remission to prisoners as part of celebration of 'Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav'. The government considered the opinions of seven authorities to grant the remission.”
The government’s affidavit in reply reveals that the proposal for premature release of the convicts was opposed by the SP, Central Bureau Of Investigation, SCB, Mumbai and Special Judge (CBI), City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, but all the authorities in Gujarat approved the decision.
However, the Gujarat Government conceded that the premature release of prisoner Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah alias Lala Vakil was opposed by the SP, Dahod and DM, Dahod as well as the Additional Director General of Police, Prisons & Correctional Administration, Gujarat.
"All the convict prisoners have completed 14+ years in the prison under life imprisonment and opinions of the concerned authorities have been obtained as per the policy of 09.07.1992 and submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide letter dated 28/06/2022 and sought the approval/suitable orders of the Government of India. The Government of India conveyed the concurrence/approval of the Central Government under Section 435 of the CrPC for premature release of 11 prisoners vide letter dated 11.07.2022," said the state government.
This was in response to the petition filed by Subhashini Ali, a CPM member, journalist Revati Laul and former Vice-Chancellor of Lucknow University Prof Roop Rekha Verma challenging the premature release of the convicts.
Meanwhile, the government has argued that the plea is neither maintainable in law nor tenable on facts, and asserted that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the remission orders. "It is well established that a PIL is not maintainable in a criminal matter. The petitioner is in no way connected to the proceedings which either convicted the accused in question nor with the proceedings which culminated in grant of remission to the convicts," the state home department said in the reply.
Alleging that the petition has been filed “at the instance of a mere busybody which has political machinations”, the government has argued that the plea is liable to be dismissed.
The State argued that, “A third party stranger either under the provisions of the Code or under any other statute is precluded to question the correctness of grant or refusal of 'sanction for prosecution' or the conviction and sentence imposed by the court after a regular trial, similarly a third-party stranger is precluded from questioning a remission order passed by the state government which is strictly in accordance with law.”
The Supreme Court on August 25 had issued notice to the government after the petition by Subhashini Ali and others, followed by another on September 9 on separate pleas by TMC MP Mahua Moitra and others.
