Gujarat government seeks Supreme Court review in Bilkis Bano case verdict

The Gujarat government has moved the Supreme Court seeking a review of its verdict that quashed the remission granted to 11 men convicted in the Bilkis Bano rape and murder case during the 2002 riots. The state government argues that certain observations made against them were unwarranted.
The Supreme Court, in its January 8 judgment, had criticized the Gujarat government, stating that it "usurped" the power of the Maharashtra government in granting remission to the convicts. The state government now contends that the court's observation was an "error apparent on the face of the record" on three main grounds.

According to the Gujarat government, another bench of the apex court in May 2022 had designated the state as the "appropriate government" and directed it to decide a remission application in line with the 1992 remission policy. The review plea argues that no adverse inference should be drawn against the state for not filing a review petition against the May 13, 2022 judgment of the coordinate bench.

The government finds fault with the court's "extreme observation" that Gujarat "acted in tandem and was complicit with the accused." The plea states that such remarks are unwarranted and against the case's record, causing serious prejudice to the state.

In the January 8 verdict, the Supreme Court had annulled the remission granted to the 11 convicts and ordered their return to jail within two weeks. Bilkis Bano, who was 21 and pregnant, was raped during the 2002 Gujarat riots, and seven of her family members were killed. The 11 convicts were released on August 15, 2022, after being granted remission by the Gujarat government.

The Supreme Court had deemed the May 13, 2022 judgment, which directed the Gujarat government to consider a remission application, a "nullity," stating that it was obtained by "playing fraud on the court." The recent plea calls for the Supreme Court to review its judgment, citing errors on the face of the record and the need for the court's interference.