INTRODUCTION

The Bilkis Bano case is a landmark case of gang rape and mass murder that occurred during the 2002 Gujarat riots in India. The Bilkis Bano case, commonly referred to as the Gujarat Riots case, is a prominent instance of intergroup conflict that took place in India's Gujarat Riots in 2002. During the riots, Muslim pregnant woman Bilkis Bano was subjected to gang sexual assault, and other members of her family were also killed. She was brutally gang raped during the racial violence that followed the Godhra train-burning incident. She was 21 years old and five months pregnant at the time of the incident.

Seven members of her family were murdered by rioters. The NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) took notice, and the SC took it up, despite the magistrate recording her statement and the police writing a closure report. CBI was given this case by the SC. 12 persons and police personnel were named in the chargesheet that the CBI filed. The case was moved from the Ahmedabad session court to Mumbai due to the severity of the offence.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Gujarat had turned violent after the Sabarmati train was burnt in Godhra on 27 February 2002. Fifty-nine karsevaks were killed in the train.

Bilkis Bano, who was five months pregnant at the time, abandoned her village of Randhikpur along with her three and a half year old daughter and 15 other family members out of fear for the outbreak of violence.

They sought safety in the Chhaparvad neighbourhood. On March 3rd, they came under attack from a group of 20 to 30 persons carrying sickles, swords, and sticks.

Bilkis, her mother, and three more women were viciously attacked and raped. Eight of the 17 Muslims from Radhikpur hamlet were discovered dead, while six were still missing. The attack was only survived by Bilkis, a male, and a three-year-old.

ISSUES IN THIS CASE

Several significant concerns about sectarian violence, justice, and human rights in India are brought up by the Bilkis Bano case. Among these problems are:

I. Communal Violence: Over 1,000 people were killed in the Gujarat riots of 2002, which also included the Bilkis Bano case. The majority of the casualties were Muslims.

II. Police Inaction: Police personnel were present when Bilkis Bano and her family were

attacked, but they did nothing to stop the violence. Furthermore, the police did nothing to file a complaint or prosecute the defendant. This draws attention to the problem of police inaction and collaboration in instances of intergroup violence.

III. Impunity For Prepetrators: The issue of impunity for those who commit acts of communal violence in India is highlighted by the length of time it took for the defendants to be found guilty in the case.

IV. Access to justice: The case shows the difficulties that victims of intergroup violence encounter while trying to obtain justice. Bilkis Bano and her family fought for justice for many years even when the accused was found guilty, they still had trouble receiving recompense.

V. Human Rights Violation: Human rights violations include the rape and murder of Bilkis Bano's family members as well as the violence and discrimination that minority populations in India must endure.

PROCEDURAL JOURNEY OF THE CASE:

The Bilkis Bano case's procedural journey included a number of significant steps, court cases, and changes throughout the years.

• The Initial Investigation (2002-2003)

Bilkis Bano requested the local police to register a complaint, they refused, and when a FIR was eventually completed, it reportedly left out important information.

The initial hesitation of the local authorities to conduct a thorough investigation into the issue drew criticism. Bilkis Bano and her supporters claimed that witnesses were intimidated and that evidence had been tampered with.

• Transfer to the CBI (2003)

The state police declined to update the FIR with pertinent information when she attempted to file a complaint. Bilkis then went to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and filed a case with the Supreme Court. The court directed for CBI inquiry. The Central Bureau of inquiry (CBI) was given the case by the Supreme Court of India in order to ensure a more unbiased inquiry due to claims of political influence at the state level and obstruction of justice.

• CBI Investigation and Charges (2004-2008)

The CBI conducted a thorough investigation, which led to the identification and arrest of the accused individuals. Within 1 month accused got arrested and the trial began in Ahmedabad.

However, the supreme court shifted the case to Mumbai after Bano voiced concerns that witnesses would be hurt and the evidence gathered by the CBI tampered with. On the Supreme Court's instruction, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) looked into the situation, and the trial took place in Maharashtra. The trial court's ruling was presented in 2008 after years of laborious work.

The nation was shocked when eleven men were found guilty for their roles in the gang rapes and killings. Notably, a number of doctors and police personnel were also found guilty for their roles in trying to hide the horrible murders.

• Convictions and Sentencing (2008)

A Mumbai Session court in 2008, found the 11 accused guilty and sentenced them to a rigorous life sentence in prison as well as a fine. And the remaining 7 got an acquittal for the lack of shredsof evidence. In May 2017, a division of the Mumbai High Court confirmed the judgement of the Sessions court.

A division bench reversed the convictions of seven individuals, including doctors and police officials, for tampering with the evidence in the case. The high court also rejected a CBI request to commute the sentences of three convicted criminals Jaswant Nai, Govind Nai, and one other from life in prison to the death penalty while allowing the CBI to appeal the convictions of seven further defendants.

Bilkis Bano, who was gang raped during the state's 2002 riots, must receive Rs 50 lakh in restitution, a job, and accommodation, according to a 2019 Supreme Court ruling. With the verdicts of guilt, Bilkis Bano and her legal team at last crossed a major threshold in their pursuit of justice.

Through its ruling, the trial court powerfully implied that those responsible for such atrocious crimes would face punishment.

• Appeals and Acquittals (2008-2012)

As the convicted people challenged their convictions, the legal struggle was far from done. A number of legal proceedings were place in higher courts, leading to the acquittal of certain defendants and the reduction of penalties for others. The defendants filed appeals with higher courts after their original convictions in an effort to have their verdicts overturned or to have the sentences reduced.

This started a protracted legal procedure. Some of the accused people had their sentences reduced or were exonerated during the appeals process. These acquittals had a variety of justifications, which could have involved flaws with the evidence, witness testimony, or defence legal arguments.

• Supreme Court Intervention (2016)

After learning that some of the defendants had received acquittals during the appeals process, the Supreme Court of India took suo moto(on its own motion) cognizance of the case in 2016.

The defendants were all found guilty by the Supreme Court, even those who had been exonerated by lower courts, after it requested a reexamination of the case. The verdicts of the accused, including those who had previously been found not guilty during the appeals, were upheld by the Supreme Court in 2017. The Supreme Court's involvement ensured that justice was done and that those responsible for the crimes were brought to justice.

• Compensation and Rehabilitation

Bilkis Bano obtained remuneration and aid for her rehabilitation, including a government job and Housing and 50 lakh as compensation, as part of the judicial process. With the help of this crucial support, she was able to mend Her life after years of pain.

ADOPTION OF THE 1992 REMSSION POLICY

The Gujarat government released the 11 convicts in accordance with the 1992 remission policy as opposed to the 2014 policy, which is still in effect today. Raj Kumar, Gujarat’s Additional Chief Secretary for Housing, claims that the 1992 policy is still appropriate because the Honorable Supreme Court has issued an order directing the implementation of the remission programme, which prevailed in 2008, the year of the sentencing. Raj Kumar believed that a special court in Mumbai Had found the 11 defendants guilty in 2008. Gujarat was operating under a remission policy at the Time of conviction; it had been in place since 1992. When the case was brought before the Supreme Court, it instructed the Gujarat government to make a decision regarding the 1992 policy because that was Widespread in 2008, the year of the conviction. Kumar also made it very apparent that the Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav amnesty did not include the release of the prisoners in accordance with the remission policies of the Centre.

The remission policy from 2014 prohibited the state government from releasing prisoners on remission for murder and rape. The attorney who represented the criminal defendants in the Supreme Court, Rishi Malhotra, stated: "The highest court, in some circumstances, has also taken the position that if there are two policies that may be used, the one that takes a liberal approach towards the defendant who needs to be put into action.

According to the attorney, the Supreme Court must make a decision. If at the time of the sentencing remission technique should be used (1992) or the 2014 policy, which was in force at the time of the remission assessment. The state would apply the policy at the time of the conviction, the top court ultimately concluded.

GUJARAT REMISSION POLICY 1992 Vs 2014

The main difference between the rules in 1992 and those in 2014 is that the latter are more clear regarding who is eligible for remission, whilst the former are not. The 2014 rules said that prisoners in the Bilkis Bano case were not eligible for remission. Raj Kumar, the Chief Secretary, remarked that the 1992 remission policy is vague, It was not determined who qualifies for remission and who does not. The 2014 policy was less extensive than this one. The 2014 policy is crystal clear that the offenders do not qualify for remission, along with many other convicts.

Challenge before the Supreme Court (2022–2024)

 Petition by Bilkis Bano

Bilkis Bano filed a writ petition under Article 32, challenging the remission as:

• Arbitrary and illegal

• Violative of Articles 14 and 21

• Beyond the jurisdiction of Gujarat Government

Key Legal Issues

• Which State Government was the “Appropriate Government” for Remission?

• Whether Remission Can Be Granted in Heinous Crimes Like Gang Rape and Mass Murder?

• Whether Executive Discretion Is Subject to Judicial Review?

Supreme Court Final Judgment (January 2024)

Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1

 Findings of the Court

The Supreme Court quashed the remission orders and directed all convicts to surrender within two weeks.

 Key Legal Reasoning

(a) Lack of Jurisdiction

The Court held that since:

• Trial was held in Maharashtra

• Conviction occurred in Maharashtra

 Maharashtra Government was the appropriate government, not Gujarat.

(b) Fraud on the Court

The convicts had earlier obtained a 2022 order from the Supreme Court by misrepresenting facts regarding jurisdiction. Relief obtained by fraud is void.

(c) Nature of Crime

The Court classified the offence as one of the most heinous crimes, involving:

• Sexual violence

• Murder of children

• Communal hatred

Such crimes demand strict scrutiny before remission.

(d) Victim’s Fundamental Rights

The Court recognised that:

• Victims have continuing rights under Article 21

• Premature release without considering victim impact violates dignity and safety

(e) Rule of Law

Executive power cannot override constitutional values. Remission is not a matter of right.

• Remission orders set aside

• Convicts directed to surrender

• Gujarat Government’s decision declared illegal

Constitutional and Legal Significance

• Strengthened victims’ rights jurisprudence

• Limited misuse of remission powers

• Reinforced judicial review over executive discretion

• Sent strong message against impunity in communal crimes

Conclusion

The Bilkis Bano case is a landmark in India’s constitutional history. It demonstrates that justice may be delayed but cannot be defeated. By restoring the sentence of the convicts, the Supreme Court reaffirmed faith in the rule of law and upheld the dignity of survivors of sexual and communal violence. The case will continue to guide future courts on remission, executive accountability, and constitutional morality in criminal justice.

Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for educational and informational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the information provided, ClearLaw.online, the author, and the publisher disclaim any liability for errors, omissions, or inadvertent inaccuracies. Readers are strongly advised to consult a qualified legal professional for guidance on any specific legal issue or matter.