Supreme Court to hear pleas of three Bilkis Bano case convicts for more time to surrender

The trio has cited ill-health and impending family or personal commitments to urge for more time to surrender

File picture of the Supreme Court of India | Photo Credit: S. Subramanium

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked its Registry to seek orders from the Chief Justice of India to list on January 19 the pleas of three of the 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case who have sought more time to surrender.

The apex court had, in its judgment on January 8, ordered the convicts to report back to jail after concluding that the remission of their life sentence by the Gujarat government in August 2022 was illegal.

The trio, Govindbhai Nai, Mitesh Chimanlal Bhatt and Ramesh Rupabhai Chandana, has cited ill-health and impending family or personal commitments to extend the time to surrender.

Their pleas were mentioned before Justice B.V. Nagarathna on Thursday. The Bilkis Bano judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan. Currently, Justice Nagarathna is heading a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol.

Justice Nagarathna asked the Registry to approach the Chief Justice for orders to re-constitute the Bench of herself and Justice Bhuyyan on January 19 and list the pleas before it as the deadline to surrender, according to the convicts’ lawyers, draws to a close on January 20.

Nai has sought a month to arrange care for his aged parents and said he himself was unwell. Chandana said his son was getting married and sought six weeks. Bhatt also asked for six weeks to harvest his crops.

The 11 men were serving life sentence for the gangrape of a pregnant Ms. Bano, the rape and murder of her family members, including a two-month-old infant during the 2002 riots.

The 251-page judgment had described the crimes of the men as “grotesque and diabolical driven by communal hatred”.

The court had made scathing remarks about the ruling BJP government in Gujarat for acting “in tandem” with the prisoners to order their early release after “usurping the power” to do so.

The judgment came as a blow to the Centre which had approved the men’s premature release.

“A woman deserves respect howsoever high or low she may be otherwise considered in society or to whatever faith she may follow or any creed she may belong to. Can heinous crimes against women permit remission of the convicts by a reduction in their sentence and by granting them liberty?” Justice Nagarathna had observed in the judgment.