Editorial with Sujit Nair: Did Gujarat govt. wrong Bilkis Bano? | BJP | PM Modi | CJI Supreme Court
- 8 months ago
Join Our WhatsApp Group:
https://linktr.ee/sujitnair
In this edition of his editorial, Mr. Sujit Nair discusses the queries raised by the Supreme Court of India regarding the Gujarat government's decision to release the rapists and murderers of Bilkis Bano and her family before their sentences were completed. The Supreme Court has directed pointed questions towards both the Gujarat government and the Central government concerning the selective application of a policy for granting remission to convicts involved in the gang-rape and murder cases related to the 2002 post-Godhra riots in Gujarat.
During the ongoing hearings on the premature release of the individuals convicted of these crimes, the judges have expressed skepticism about the Gujarat government's approach to granting remission. They have inquired about the release of the convicts who had initially received the death penalty, which was later commuted to life imprisonment. The justices questioned why these individuals were released after serving only 14 years in prison while other prisoners were not given similar opportunities for release. They also raised concerns about the selective implementation of the policy and the lack of consistent opportunities for reform and reintegration in the prison system. The court has asked for data on the extent of this policy's application and the reasons behind the overflowing prison population.
The Supreme Court has further questioned the basis for forming the Jail Advisory Committee specifically for the Bilkis Bano convicts and why the opinion of the Godhra court was sought when the trial did not take place there.
The 11 convicts, who were released on Independence Day the previous year, were sentenced by a court in Maharashtra. The judge who had convicted them had recommended against their release. The Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the Gujarat government, expressed difficulty in addressing the court's inquiries in a general manner. He indicated that a pending case in the Supreme Court would require all states to provide detailed information.
The Gujarat government argued that the convicts had been released in accordance with the law, referring to a policy from 1992 that was applicable due to their conviction in 2008. In the prior hearing, the court had questioned an earlier Supreme Court order related to the Bilkis Bano case, raising concerns about the process of passing the order as a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) rather than an appeal against the Bombay High Court's decision.
Bilkis Bano's lawyer, Shobha Gupta, criticized the Gujarat government's decision to release the convicts. She highlighted that the Maharashtra state and the Central government were not adequately involved in the decision-making process.
#bilkisbano #godhrariots #gujaratgovernment #bjp #womensafety #bjp #brijbhushansingh #wrestlersprotest #ramrahim #crimeagainstwomen
https://linktr.ee/sujitnair
In this edition of his editorial, Mr. Sujit Nair discusses the queries raised by the Supreme Court of India regarding the Gujarat government's decision to release the rapists and murderers of Bilkis Bano and her family before their sentences were completed. The Supreme Court has directed pointed questions towards both the Gujarat government and the Central government concerning the selective application of a policy for granting remission to convicts involved in the gang-rape and murder cases related to the 2002 post-Godhra riots in Gujarat.
During the ongoing hearings on the premature release of the individuals convicted of these crimes, the judges have expressed skepticism about the Gujarat government's approach to granting remission. They have inquired about the release of the convicts who had initially received the death penalty, which was later commuted to life imprisonment. The justices questioned why these individuals were released after serving only 14 years in prison while other prisoners were not given similar opportunities for release. They also raised concerns about the selective implementation of the policy and the lack of consistent opportunities for reform and reintegration in the prison system. The court has asked for data on the extent of this policy's application and the reasons behind the overflowing prison population.
The Supreme Court has further questioned the basis for forming the Jail Advisory Committee specifically for the Bilkis Bano convicts and why the opinion of the Godhra court was sought when the trial did not take place there.
The 11 convicts, who were released on Independence Day the previous year, were sentenced by a court in Maharashtra. The judge who had convicted them had recommended against their release. The Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the Gujarat government, expressed difficulty in addressing the court's inquiries in a general manner. He indicated that a pending case in the Supreme Court would require all states to provide detailed information.
The Gujarat government argued that the convicts had been released in accordance with the law, referring to a policy from 1992 that was applicable due to their conviction in 2008. In the prior hearing, the court had questioned an earlier Supreme Court order related to the Bilkis Bano case, raising concerns about the process of passing the order as a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) rather than an appeal against the Bombay High Court's decision.
Bilkis Bano's lawyer, Shobha Gupta, criticized the Gujarat government's decision to release the convicts. She highlighted that the Maharashtra state and the Central government were not adequately involved in the decision-making process.
#bilkisbano #godhrariots #gujaratgovernment #bjp #womensafety #bjp #brijbhushansingh #wrestlersprotest #ramrahim #crimeagainstwomen