Snubbed : Supreme Court Jolt To Gujarat Government, Rejects It’s Plea Seeking Review On Court’s Remarks In Bilkis Bano Case

The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Gujarat government seeking a review of the court’s verdict which contained certain observations against the state while quashing the remission granted to 11 men convicted of raping Bilkis Bano and murdering seven of her family members during the 2002 riots.

According to PTI, A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan also rejected the application for listing review petition in open court.

“Having carefully gone through the review petition, the order under challenge and the papers annexed therewith, we are satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record or any merit in the review petition, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed,” the bench said.

The Gujarat government in its plea had said the apex court’s observation in the January 8 judgment, holding the state guilty of “usurpation of power” and “abuse of discretion” for complying with an order of another top court bench, was an “error apparent on the face of the record” primarily on three grounds.

It had said another coordinate bench of the apex court had, in May 2022, held the state of Gujarat to be the “appropriate government” and directed the state to decide the remission application of one of the convicts in accordance with the remission policy of 1992.

“No adverse inference of ‘usurpation of power’ can be drawn against the state of Gujarat for not filing a review petition against the judgment dated May 13, 2022 (of the coordinate bench),” the review plea said.

“It is humbly submitted that the extreme observation made by this court that the state of Gujarat ‘acted in tandem and was complicit with respondent no.3/accused’ is not only highly unwarranted and against the record of the case, but has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner-state of Gujarat,” it said.

According to the plea, in view of the “errors on the face of the record”, the apex court’s interference is imperative and it may be “pleased to review its impugned common final judgment and order dated January 8, 2024… to the extent as mentioned hereinabove”.