Live
- 4 lakh challans issued for improper parking
- AP Govt. Employs Drones in Fight Against Cannabis Cultivation
- Metro to sell Trade Fair tickets at 55 stations
- Revise income limit for EWS admissions in pvt schools to `5 lakh: LG
- MCD mayoral election today: Satya reappointed as presiding officer
- Don’t fall in trap of drug addiction, youths cautioned
- Air Pollution Crisis: LG approves redeployment of Civil Defence volunteers
- Delhi police orders checking of hotels to nab criminals
- Kavya seeks people’s support for development of district
- Leaders remember People’s poet Kaloji
SC junks Bilkis Bano convicts’ bail pleas
Bhagwandas and Babulal moved the court contending the January verdict contravened a 2002 order by the Constitution bench and asked that the issue of their remission by the Gujarat government being cancelled, be referred to a larger bench
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed interim bail petitions filed by two men - Radheyshyam Bhagwandas and Rajubhai Babulal - who had been convicted of raping Bilkis Bano and killing her family during the 2002 riots in Gujarat’s Godhra.
Bhagwandas and Babualal had sought temporary release till the top court ruled on a fresh remission plea. They have filed a challenge to the court’s January verdict that cancelled their release by the Gujarat government on Independence Day in 2022.
In March, Bhagwandas and Babulal moved the court contending the January verdict contravened a 2002 order by the Constitution bench and asked that the issue - of their remission by the Gujarat government being cancelled - be referred to a larger bench. They claimed an “anomalous” situation had arisen; i.e., two different benches of the Supreme Court, both of same strength, had taken diametrically opposite views on the state government’s policy of early release of prisoners.
According to the plea, in May 2022 one bench directed the state to consider Bhagwandas’ plea for early release. However, the bench that delivered the verdict said it was Maharashtra, and not Gujarat, that was competent to grant remission.
“... if this is permitted then it would lead not only to judicial impropriety but to uncertainty and chaos as to which precedence (sic) of law has to be applied in future,” the plea argued, warning that the January 8 verdict could be used as legal precedence.
“What is this plea... how is it even maintainable? Absolutely misconceived... How can we sit on appeal in PIL (public interest litigation),” Justice Sanjiv Khanna declared.
