Gujarat government was complicit and acted in tandem with convicts: Supreme Court on early release of Bilkis Bano rape convicts

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the Gujarat government was "complicit and acted in tandem" with the convict who had earlier approached the Supreme Court for a decision on his plea for premature release in the Bilkis Bano gang rape case..The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said that the Gujarat government should have filed a review petition against the Supreme Court judgment of May 2022 that declared the State to be competent to decide the plea for remission of convicts in the case.The bench concluded that the Court was misled by suppression of facts in the earlier plea and that use of power by Gujarat to grant relief to the convicts after the May 2022 ruling amounted to usurpation of power of Maharashtra government.“It was the State of Maharashtra [which] could have only passed the remission orders respondent no 3 [convict] surreptitiously filed the plea before the Supreme Court. Taking advantage of May 13 order of this court, other convicts also filed remission applications and this Gujarat government passed remission orders. Gujarat was complicit and acted in tandem with respondent no. 3 (convict) in this case. This court was misled by suppressing facts. Use of power by Gujarat was only an usurpation of power by the State.”.Gujarat was complicit and acted in tandem with respondent no. 3 (convict) in this case.Supreme Court.While setting aside Gujarat government's decision to allow premature release of the convicts, the Court said,"State of Gujarat had earlier correctly contended that the appropriate government was Maharashtra, which was in accordance with 437 CrPC ... though it was set aside by the Supreme Court. Gujarat could have filed a review petition,"The top court added that it failed to understand why the Gujarat government did not file a review seeking correction of the May 13, 2022 ruling..Looking into the law on premature release of convicts, the Court noted that the appropriate government is required to take permission of the court before passing remission orders."This means that place of occurrence or place of imprisonment of convicts are not relevant for remission," it opined while setting aside the orders on ground of usurpation of powers by Gujarat government..On the Supreme Court's May 2022 ruling that held Gujarat to be competent to decide the plea for premature release of the convicts, the bench headed by Justice Nagarathna found that the convict who had approached the top court had suppressed the material facts.The convict had not disclosed that Gujarat High Court had dismissed his plea for decision by Gujarat government and after that he had filed the application of premature release in Maharashtra and not Gujarat, it noted..The Court found the convict to have "played fraud" with it, as it reasoned that if he were aggrieved by the Gujarat High Court order, he could have filed an appeal before the top court.However, it noted that he instead moved Maharashtra government for remission and when the opinion there was negative, he moved the Supreme Court.The High Court order could not have been set aside in an Article 32 plea, the top court said.Due to the suppression of the facts, the bench headed by Justice Nagarathna held the earlier ruling as non est and invalid in law."May 13, 2022 order of this court is also per incuriam since it does not follow the binding decision of the nine judge bench of the Supreme court where a HC order cannot be set aside in a PIL..," it added.Read more about the judgment here and here..[Read judgment]