BILKIS YAKUB RASOOL vs UNION OF INDIA, 2024

BILKIS YAKUB RASOOL vs UNION OF INDIA, 2024

Case Title and Citation

The case is titled BILKIS YAKUB RASOOL v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS. The matter involved Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 491 of 2022 (Etc.), and the citation is 2024 INSC 24.

Factual Background

These writ petitions were filed following the grant of remission and early release to eleven convicts (respondent Nos. 3 to 13) by the State of Gujarat via orders dated August 10, 2022. The convicts were found guilty of committing grotesque and diabolical crimes during the large-scale Gujarat riots in the aftermath of the Godhra train incident in February 2002. The crime included the brutal gang-raping of the petitioner, Bilkis Yakub Rasool, who was pregnant at the time, the gang rape and murder of her mother and cousin, and the murder of eight minors, including the petitioner’s three-year-old daughter, whose head was smashed on a rock.

Due to the tainted and dishonest nature of the initial investigation by the Gujarat police, the Supreme Court had earlier transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The trial was subsequently transferred from Gujarat to the Special Court in Mumbai. The Mumbai Special Judge convicted the accused in January 2008 and sentenced them to life imprisonment, a conviction upheld by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.

After serving over fourteen years of their sentence, one of the convicts (Respondent No. 3) filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court, suppressing material facts and misrepresenting court orders, seeking a direction for the State of Gujarat to consider his premature release under its 1992 policy. The Supreme Court, on May 13, 2022, issued an order directing the State of Gujarat to consider the application, leading directly to the impugned en-masse remission orders.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the petition filed by one of the victims (Bilkis Yakub Rasool) in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 491 of 2022 under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable?
2. Whether the Government of the State of Gujarat was competent to pass the impugned orders of remission?
3. Whether the impugned orders of remission passed by the respondent – State of Gujarat in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 13 are in accordance with law?
4. What Order should follow?

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition filed by the victim, Bilkis Yakub Rasool. The Court held that the orders of remission dated August 10, 2022, are illegal, vitiated, and quashed. The Court held that the State of Gujarat lacked the competency and jurisdiction to pass these orders. Consequently, respondent Nos. 3 to 13 were directed to report to the concerned jail authorities within two weeks from the date of the order. The question regarding the maintainability of the connected Public Interest Litigations (PILs) was kept open for consideration in any other appropriate case.

Reason for the decision

The Court provided multiple reasons for striking down the remission orders:

1. Lack of Jurisdiction (Usurpation of Power): The State of Gujarat was not the appropriate Government to consider the applications for remission. Under Section 432(7)(b) of the CrPC, the appropriate Government is the State within which the offender is sentenced. Since the convicts were sentenced by the Special Court in Mumbai, the State of Maharashtra was the appropriate Government. The State of Gujarat usurped the powers of Maharashtra.
2. Order Vitiated by Fraud: The prior Supreme Court order dated May 13, 2022 (which directed Gujarat to act), was held to be a nullity and non est in law. This was because the convict (Respondent No. 3) obtained the order by suppression of material facts (e.g., hiding the negative opinions issued by the CBI and the Mumbai Special Judge) and misrepresentation of facts (suppressio veri, suggestio falsi).
3. Per Incuriam: The May 13, 2022, order was held to be per incuriam because it was rendered contrary to the binding larger bench decisions of the Supreme Court concerning the definition of “appropriate Government”.
4. Non-Compliance with Mandatory Procedure: The Gujarat Government failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 432(2) CrPC, which demands that the appropriate Government must obtain the reasoned opinion of the Presiding Judge of the convicting court (the Special Judge, Mumbai). The opinion of the local Sessions Judge at Dahod was considered irrelevant as he was not the convicting judge and had not followed the requisite procedure.
5. Failure to Consider Relevant Factors: The authorities failed to consider that the convicts had not paid the fine ordered by the Special Court, making them liable to serve the default sentences. Ignoring this relevant consideration vitiated the exercise of discretion.
6. Rule of Law: The Court held that when liberty is obtained based on orders that are declared null and void, the rule of law must prevail. Consequently, the status quo ante (imprisonment) must be restored, as the convicts cannot seek remission while outside of jail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court determined that the remission orders granted by the State of Gujarat to the eleven convicts were fundamentally illegal due to the usurpation of jurisdiction, failure to follow statutory mandates, and having been procured based on a fraudulently obtained Supreme Court order. The writ petition filed by the victim was allowed, and the Court enforced the rule of law by directing the convicts (Respondent Nos. 3 to 13) to surrender to jail authorities within two weeks. The victim’s right to approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 to enforce her fundamental rights (Article 14 and 21) was affirmed.