Case Summary: Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India & Others (2024)
(2024) 01 SC CK 0062
In The Supreme Court Of India
Case No : Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 319, 326, 352, 403, 422, 491 of 2022
Appellant : Bilkis Yakub Rasool
Respondent : Union of India & Others
Date of Decision : 08-01-2024
Citations : (2024) 01 SC CK 0062
Bench : Division Bench
Hon'ble Judges : B.V. Nagarathna, J; Ujjal Bhuyan, J
Advocates : Shobha Gupta, Indira Jaising, Vrinda Grover, Shadan Farasat, Tushar Mehta (SG), S.V. Raju (ASG), and others
Final Decision : Allowed (Remission Orders quashed)
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2369609-bilkis-yakub-rasool-vs-union?s=&refine_search=&s_acts=
Facts of the Case
• Bilkis Yakub Rasool, a gang-rape survivor of the 2002 Gujarat riots, challenged the remission orders (10.08.2022) by the State of Gujarat that prematurely released 11 convicts serving life imprisonment.
• The crime involved gang rape of Bilkis (then 21 and pregnant), murder of her three-year-old daughter, mother, cousin (with infant), and 14 other family members.
• Several public-spirited individuals (Subhashini Ali, Mahua Moitra, Meeran Chadha Borwankar, etc.) also filed petitions challenging the remission.
• Petitioners argued that remission in heinous crimes against women violated Constitutional rights to equality, dignity, and justice.
Law Points Raised
• Whether remission of convicts in heinous crimes (rape, mass murder) is legally sustainable.
• Scope of judicial review under Article 32 against remission orders.
• Whether fundamental rights of victims override State’s discretion in granting remission.
• Whether remission granted without consultation under Sections 432–435 CrPC was valid.
• The role of Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, 72, 161, 226, 142 in balancing convict’s rights vs victim’s rights.
Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred
• Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 20, 21, 32, 51A(e), 72, 142, 161, 226
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 304, 306, 324, 325, 326, 354, 376, 376(2)(e), 376(2)(g)
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 432(1), 432(2), 432(5–7), 433, 433A, 434, 435
• Precedent cited: Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107
Judgments Referred
• Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107
• Other precedents on remission, reformation vs deterrence in sentencing
Obiter Dicta
• Remission cannot be a tool to undermine justice to victims, especially in cases of heinous crimes.
• Respect and dignity of women are non-negotiable; liberty of convicts cannot override rights of survivors.
• The policy of remission must align with constitutional morality and victim-centric justice.
Ratio Decidendi
• The State of Gujarat was not competent to grant remission, as trial was transferred to Maharashtra.
• The remission orders were arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 21.
• Heinous crimes like rape and mass murder cannot justify premature release in the guise of reformation.
Final Ruling
• Supreme Court quashed the remission orders of 10.08.2022.
• Directed the convicts to surrender within two weeks.
• Reiterated the principle of victim-centric justice and constitutional supremacy.
Summary
The Supreme Court struck down the remission granted to the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, holding it arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of victims’ rights. The Court reaffirmed that heinous crimes against women and children demand deterrence and dignity-centric justice, and remission policies cannot override constitutional guarantees of equality and justice.