SC to hear plea against remission in bilkis Bano case

SC to hear plea against remission in bilkis Bano case

Subject : Polity

Section: Judiciary

Concept :

• Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud told Bilkis Bano that a Special Bench would be formed to hear her petition, challenging the release of 11 men sentenced to life imprisonment for her gang rape during the 2002 riots.

Background

• Already, a Review Bench led by Justice Rastogi had dismissed a petition filed by Ms. Bano to review a May 2022 judgment of the court.
• This judgment had cleared the path for Gujarat to consider and release the convicts, who were serving life sentence in her case, under the State’s Premature Release Policy of 1992.
• The Gujarat government had argued that the decision to release the convicts prematurely had been taken after following the procedure established by law.

Review petition by Bilkis Bano

• Her petition had wanted the court to reconsider its judgment which permitted the Gujarat government to apply the State’s Premature Release Policy of 1992.
• Through her review petition, Bano said the remission policy of the State of Maharashtra, where the trial happened, and not Gujarat would have governed the case.
• In May 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State governments on the issue of remission.
• Premature release of a convict has to be considered in terms of the policy applicable in the State where the crime was committed
• Hence, Gujrat government’s remission policy was applied for the release of these convicts.

Power of SC to review its judgments

• Constitutional provision :
• A ruling by the Supreme Court is final and binding. The SC rarely entertains reviews of its rulings.
• However, Article 137 of the Constitution grants the SC the power to review its judgments or orders.
• A review petition must be filed within 30 days of pronouncement of the judgment.
• Grounds for review :
• In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court itself laid down three grounds for seeking a review of a verdict it has delivered:
• the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
• mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
• any other sufficient reason.
• In subsequent rulings, the court specified that “any sufficient reason” means a reason that is analogous to the other two grounds.
• In another 2013 ruling (Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd), the court laid down nine principles on when a review is maintainable.
• Procedure followed while hearing the review cases :
• Except in cases of death penalty, review petitions are heard through circulation by judges in their chambers, and not in an open court.
• Lawyers make their case through written submissions and not oral arguments.
• The judges who passed the verdict decide on the review petition as well.
• What if a review petition fails?
• In Roopa Hurra v Ashok Hurra (2002), the court itself evolved the concept of a curative petition, which can be heard after a review is dismissed.
• It is meant to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice, and to prevent abuse of process.
• A curative petition is also entertained on very narrow grounds like a review petition, and is generally not granted an oral hearing.

For notes on remission of prisoners by state government, refer – https://optimizeias.com/remission-of-prisoners/