Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors. (2024)

Case Details 

Case Name: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India and Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: 2-Judge Bench- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Date of Judgment: January 08, 2024

Citation: (2024) 5 SCC 481; 2024 INSC 22

Writ Petition: (Crl.) No. 491 of 2022

Introduction

The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024), reflects the superiority of law, institutions, and victim rights over administrative autocracy. The case relates to the termination of premature release and remission to 11 convicts of the gang-rape and murder case of the Bilkis rape victim.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court of India canceled the orders of remission issued by the State of Gujarat, which released the convicts in August 2022. By its ruling, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the state of Gujarat had no jurisdiction to grant remission as the trial took place in Maharashtra and not Gujarat. The Supreme Court also directed that an earlier order from the Supreme Court, in favor of one of the convicts, was obtained by fraud and suppression of facts and as such, was null and void. By this ruling, the Supreme Court reasserts the fact that the power to issue orders of clemency should be exercised with extreme caution and only in the public’s best interest.

Facts of the Case 

The case was initiated from the communal clashes that took place in Gujarat in March 2002. The then 21-year-old Bilkis Bano was gang-raped by a mob while also killing her 14 members of her family with her 3-year-old daughter also being murdered. Due to local obstruction, the trials for the Gujarat violence had been transferred to Maharashtra at the direction of the Supreme Court in 2004. At a special CBI court in Mumbai, 11 men were found guilty of gang rape and murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2008. Conviction was upheld in the same verdict by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.

In May 2022, one of those convicted (Radheshyam Shah) requested through a writ petition to the Supreme Court a direction to the State of Gujarat to consider releasing him based on the 1992 Gujarat Remission Policy. A bench of two judges (on May 13, 2022, order) directed the State of Gujarat to decide on the remission request by the convicts within two months.Therefore, on August 15, 2022 (Independence Day), the State of Gujarat released all 11 convicts from life imprisonment.

Thereafter, numerous Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed before the Supreme Court by both political functionaries, and activists challenging the remission of the convicts. Bilkis filed the main writ petition under Article 32 seeking to challenge the Gujarat government’s remission orders based on the illegality and non-application of mind by the State as well as the non-availability of any jurisdiction for the State to do so.

Issues Before the Court

1.  Whether the State of Gujarat was the “appropriate Government” under Section 432(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to grant remission to convicts whose trial took place in Maharashtra.
2. Whether the Supreme Court’s prior order dated May 13, 2022, which directed Gujarat to consider the remission was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, and suppression of material facts.
3. Whether writ petitions under Article 32 challenging executive orders of remission are maintainable at the instance of third-party public-spirited citizens and the victim.
4. Whether the remission orders complied with statutory procedures under Section 432 CrPC, including obtaining the mandatory opinion of the presiding judge of the convicting court.

• Petitioner’s Arguments: 

1. Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction: The petitioners submitted that under Section 432(7)(b) CrPC, the “appropriate Government” entitled to grant remission is the state within which the offender was tried and sentenced namely, Maharashtra, not Gujarat.
2. Fraud on the Court: It was argued that the convict suppressed key facts including previous rejections of his remission applications by Maharashtra authorities when obtaining the May 13, 2022, Supreme Court order.
3. Non-Application of Mind: The petitioners highlighted that the mandatory consultation with the trial judge (Special CBI Court, Mumbai) resulted in a negative opinion against remission, which Gujarat ignored.

• Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Compliance with Judicial Mandate: The State of Gujarat argued that it merely executed the binding directive issued by the Supreme Court in its May 13, 2022, order.
2. Maintainability Challenge: The convicts asserted that third-party PILs are not maintainable in criminal matters and that executive remission is a sovereign privilege not subject to judicial review at the behest of victims once granted.
3. Rehabilitative Principle: Counsel argued that the convicts had completed over 14 years of actual imprisonment with good conduct, entitling them to consideration under the 1992 policy.

Judgement 

On January 08, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment setting aside the remission orders:

• Quashing of Remission: The Supreme Court declared all 11 remission orders granted by the State of Gujarat on August 10, 2022, illegal, null, and void.
• Surrender Order: The Supreme Court declared all 11 convicts to report back to prison authorities within two weeks to serve out their remaining sentences.
• Invalidation of Prior Mandate: The Supreme Court declared the judgment in Radheshyam Shah (2022) were declared a nullity in law because it had been obtained through fraudulent suppression of facts.

Reasoning of the Court

The two-judge bench delivered a detailed ruling authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, focusing on constitutional supremacy and jurisdictional competence:

• Jurisdictional Imperative under Section 432(7) CrPC: The Court held that the plain language of Section 432(7) CrPC leaves no room for ambiguity: the state where the trial and sentencing occur is exclusively the “appropriate Government.” Since the trial took place in Mumbai under the Supreme Court’s orders, Maharashtra held exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, Gujarat exercised a power that it did not possess.
• Fraud Vitiates Everything: The Bench noted that the convict Radheshyam Shah had deliberately misled the court in 2022. He failing to disclose that the Gujarat High Court had previously ruled against Gujarat’s jurisdiction. He also failed to disclose that Maharashtra had rejected his plea. Applying the principle fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together), the Court held that a judicial order obtained by fraud is a complete nullity (coram non judice).
• Victim Rights and the Rule of Law: The Court affirmed that Article 32 petitions by victims challenging illegal executive action are fully maintainable. Justice Nagarathna emphasized that executive remission cannot be granted arbitrarily to favor perpetrators. It also cannot disregard the rights and safety of victims. Therefore, “Rule of law means that no one, however high or low, is above the law compassion and sympathy have no role to play where the rule of law has to be enforced.”

Significance of the Judgement

• Re-establishing Institutional Integrity: The decision demonstrated the judiciary’s willingness to correct its own prior mistakes when brought to light, restoring public faith in judicial oversight.
• Clarifying Remission Jurisprudence: The judgment set clear legal boundaries for executive clemency. It reinforced that remission is a statutory power subject to strictly defined jurisdictional conditions and judicial review.
• Empowering Victim Rights: It reaffirmed that victims of heinous crimes remain key stakeholders in post-conviction proceedings. Their rights to safety and justice cannot be overridden by political or administrative expediency.

Conclusion

Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024) is a milestone in Indian constitutional history. By invalidating the unlawful release of the 11 convicts and ordering their return to prison. The Supreme Court established that administrative power must strictly operate within statutory limits. The judgment serves as a powerful reminder that equality before law and constitutional morality remain paramount over administrative arbitrariness.

References 

1. Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India and Ors. (2024) 5 SCC 481; 2024 INSC 22. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47574125/
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 432, and 433A)
3. Constitution of India, 1950 (Articles 32, 142, and 226).
4. Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 8 SCC 552.
5. BILKIS YAKUB RASOOL v. UNION OF INDIA | Supreme Court of India | Judgment | Law | CaseMine
6. Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs. Union of India | Supreme Court | Order.law