"Third-Parties Can't Have Say": Gujarat Govt To SC On PILs Against Early Release Of Convicts In Bilkis Bano Case

The Gujarat government gave its statement to the Supreme Court on Wednesday (9 August) over petitions opposing the early release of the 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case.

It said that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the reduction of the sentence through remission is not permissible since third parties lack authority in determining a convict's sentence duration.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the state government, conveyed to Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan that remission equates to sentence reduction, and as such, PILs regarding this matter are not valid.

Raju referred to an existing Supreme Court ruling, highlighting that third parties do not have a say in reducing sentences. He emphasized that this matter exclusively involves the court, the accused, and the prosecution.

Justice Nagarathna intervened by pointing out that the remission order is an administrative decision made by the government, not a judicial authority. Raju responded by acknowledging that it's an administrative order but one that still impacts sentence reduction and stands on different grounds.

Senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, representing convict Radheshyam Shah, argued that permitting third parties to challenge remission orders would set a "dangerous precedent" and lead to numerous litigations.

He understood the victim's right to approach the court but found the involvement of politicians and journalists illogical. Malhotra cautioned against allowing such PILs as it could establish an alarming trend.

Malhotra noted that the PIL petitioners sought to nullify remission orders without providing the orders themselves. He pointed out they moved the court based on media reports, lacking a copy of the orders.

Referring to a 1992 SC judgment, the bench clarified the distinction between the two cases, emphasizing that the present matter questions an administrative remission order, not conviction and sentencing.

Justice Bhuyan agreed that the focus should be on whether the remission order serves the public interest. He explained that PILs involve the petitioner's fundamental right filed in the public interest.

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra also opposed third-party interference in remission decisions, stating it could jeopardize the rights of the accused. He stressed that a victim's involvement in a criminal proceeding is guided by statute and no more. This underscores the inadmissibility of third-party interference.

Representing another convict, senior advocate S Guru Kirshna Kumar suggested that Bano should have first approached the High Court, allowing convicts to challenge adverse decisions before both the HC division bench and the SC.