Bilkis Bano Case : Supreme court’s intervention unveils a legal quagmire and questions the misuse of power, emphasizing the need for justice and accountability
Bilkis Bano Case : New delhi 08 jan (CITY TIMES).In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the Gujarat government’s remission order, demanding 11 convicts involved in the heinous gangrape and murder of Bilkis Bano’s family during the 2002 Godhra riots to surrender. The court’s intervention unveils a legal quagmire and questions the misuse of power, emphasizing the need for justice and accountability.
The apex court, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, declared the Gujarat government’s remission order null and void, asserting that the power to decide remission lies with the Maharashtra government, not Gujarat. The court questioned the legitimacy of a previous order and accused the Gujarat government of deceptive practices, characterizing the release of convicts as a “nullity.”
Suppression of Facts and Legal Manipulation
The verdict shed light on the convicts’ lack of transparency, accusing them of not approaching the court with clean hands. The bench emphasized that the legal proceedings were marred by the “suppression of facts” and labeled it as a fraudulent act against the court. This revelation raises concerns about the integrity of the judicial process and the ethical conduct of those involved.
Usurpation of Power and Rule of Law Violation
The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Gujarat government’s actions, denouncing it for usurping and abusing power. The court expressed dismay over the absence of a review application from the Gujarat government, highlighting the misuse of the Supreme Court’s order for granting remission. This instance, according to the court, is a classic case of violating the rule of law, emphasizing the need for accountability and adherence to legal procedures.
Bilkis Bano, the survivor of the heinous crime, took the case to the Supreme Court along with others, challenging the premature release of the 11 convicts. The court acknowledged the victim’s perspective, stating that the release of convicts through questionable remission would be against public interest and could shock the collective public conscience. This recognition underscores the importance of considering the victim’s safety and well-being in legal decisions.
Government’s Defense and Remission Policy
The Gujarat government, in its defense, cited the completion of a 14-year sentence and the good behavior of the convicts as grounds for remission. However, the Supreme Court’s decision questioned the validity of the remission, emphasizing that it was not within the circular governing the grant of remission as part of the “Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav” celebration. This scrutiny reinforces the importance of adherence to established legal frameworks.
Legal Challenges and Public Outcry
The pleas filed before the Supreme Court highlighted the challenge against the Gujarat government’s decision to release the 11 convicts, emphasizing the heinous nature of the crimes committed. The public outcry against the release centered on concerns for public interest, collective conscience, and the safety of the victim. The court’s decision aligns with the sentiment that justice should not be compromised for the sake of remission policies.
click to read news in hindi dakshinprakash.com
you may also like https://citytimes.co.in/international/boycott-maldives/