Bhagwandas and Babualal had sought temporary release till the Supreme Court ruled on a fresh remission plea.
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain the interim bail plea of Radheshyam Bhagwandas and Rajubhai Babulal, two convicts in the Bilkis Bano case. The convicts had requested interim bail until the Gujarat government decides on their release. However, the court questioned the validity of their petition and declined to hear the case.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Khanna and Sanjay Kumar expressed strong reservations over the plea. “What is this request? How can this be accepted… This is absolutely wrong. How can we consider an appeal under (Article) 32?” the bench said. Following this, the convicts withdrew their application.
The convicts had initially approached the Supreme Court in March, arguing for interim bail on the grounds of inconsistent judgments by two different benches of the Supreme Court regarding the Gujarat government’s decision on remission of sentences. They pointed out that one bench found the Maharashtra government’s policy appropriate, while another found the Gujarat government’s policy to be correct. They sought clarification from the Supreme Court as to which decision should be deemed correct, terming the judgments inconsistent and requesting the matter be referred to a larger bench.
However, on Friday, the Supreme Court categorically refused to hear the plea for interim bail.
It is noteworthy that on January 8 this year, the Supreme Court had canceled the immunity granted by the Gujarat government to the 11 rape convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, concluding that the immunity policy applied was that of Maharashtra, where the rape case was heard, and not of the Gujarat government.
The Bilkis Bano case, a high-profile gang rape incident during the 2002 Gujarat riots, has seen extensive legal proceedings. In its January 8 judgment, the Supreme Court emphasised the applicability of the immunity policy of Maharashtra, dismissing the Gujarat government’s decision to pardon the convicts.
The decision by the Supreme Court reaffirms the importance of consistency in judicial decisions and the necessity for clarity in the application of immunity policies across different jurisdictions.
