Case Citation

Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors., Supreme Court of India, (2024) 1 SCC 1.

The decision in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India represents one of the most significant rulings of 2024 on the intersection of executive clemency, victims’ rights, and federal competence.

The case involved the premature release of eleven convicts who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the brutal gang rape of Bilkis Bano and the murder of her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots. When the Gujarat Government granted remission in 2022, widespread outrage followed, raising questions of legality, propriety, and constitutional morality.

The primary issues concerned:

• The jurisdiction of state governments in remission matters,
• The extent of judicial review over executive clemency, and
• The impact of such decisions on the fundamental rights of victims under Articles 14 and 21.

Facts of the Case Bilkis Yakub Rasool

Parties Involved

• Petitioner: Bilkis Yakub Rasool (popularly known as Bilkis Bano), survivor of the 2002 Gujarat riots.
• Respondents: Union of India, State of Gujarat, and eleven convicts released pursuant to remission.

Relevant Facts

In March 2002, during communal riots in Gujarat, Bilkis Bano, then 21 years old and five months pregnant, was gang-raped while fourteen members of her family were killed. The investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation, and the trial was conducted in Maharashtra to ensure fairness.

In 2008, the Mumbai Sessions Court convicted eleven men and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

In 2022, after serving 14 years, the convicts sought remission. The Gujarat Government granted remission under its 1992 policy, leading to their release on Independence Day, 15 August 2022.

Procedural History

Writ petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the remission orders.

The petitioners argued that Gujarat lacked jurisdiction since the trial and conviction occurred in Maharashtra, and that remission orders were arbitrary, mala fide, and violative of victims’ rights.

Legal Issues

1. Whether the State of Gujarat was the “appropriate government” under Section 432 CrPC and Section 433A CrPC to consider remission when the trial had taken place in Maharashtra.
2. Whether the remission orders of 2022 were arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
3. What is the scope of judicial review in remission cases, and to what extent should courts consider victims’ rights and public interest.

Court’s Decision

Holding

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment delivered on 8 January 2024, quashed the remission orders and directed all eleven convicts to surrender within two weeks.

Rationale

The Court held that Gujarat was not the competent authority, since the trial and conviction occurred in Maharashtra. Only the Maharashtra Government could consider remission.

Moreover, remission in this case was granted without proper application of mind, contrary to constitutional morality and victims’ rights.

Legal Reasoning

Majority Opinion (Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

• Appropriate Government: Under Section 432(7) CrPC, the “appropriate government” is the state where the offender is convicted and sentenced. Since the trial was held in Maharashtra, Gujarat had no jurisdiction.
• Judicial Review: While remission is an executive power, it must conform to constitutional principles. Courts may intervene when remission is granted arbitrarily or contrary to statutory requirements.
• Victims’ Rights: The Court emphasized that victims have a legitimate expectation of fair treatment. Arbitrary remission undermines faith in the justice system and violates Article 21 of the victims.

Statutes and Precedents Cited

• Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1 – clarified remission powers of Union and State governments.
• Sections 432, 433A CrPC – governing remission.
• Articles 14 and 21 – equality and right to life/dignity.

Dissenting Opinions: None – judgment was unanimous.

Impact of the Case

Legal Precedent

The judgment clarifies the meaning of “appropriate government” under remission laws, creating a binding precedent for cross-jurisdictional trials. It strengthens judicial oversight over executive clemency.

Social Impact

The decision restored faith among victims of communal violence that justice cannot be diluted through political or administrative influence. It also reinforced women’s rights and dignity in cases of sexual violence.

Political Impact

The case sparked nationwide debate on the misuse of remission powers, political favoritism, and the need for uniform remission policies across states.

Analysis

Critical Analysis

The Court’s decision is commendable for upholding the rule of law and dignity. It balanced executive discretion with judicial oversight, ensuring that clemency is not exercised arbitrarily.

Strengths

• Clear interpretation of “appropriate government.”
• Victim-centric approach, expanding Article 21 protections.
• Strong stance against political misuse of remission.

Weaknesses

• The judgment did not lay down comprehensive guidelines for remission in federal contexts (e.g., transfer cases, CBI trials).
• No concrete framework was provided for consulting victims before remission decisions.

Alternative Outcomes

The Court could have mandated a nationwide uniform remission policy or directed Parliament to legislate on the matter, preventing future conflicts.

Conclusion

The Bilkis Yakub Rasool case is a landmark ruling reinforcing constitutional morality, victims’ rights, and federal balance in remission law. It ensures that executive powers are not exercised in a manner that undermines public faith in the justice system.

The decision also highlights the urgent need for legislative reform — including uniform remission guidelines, mandatory victim consultation, and transparency in Jail Advisory Committees.

Ultimately, the case demonstrates the Court’s role as the guardian of justice, dignity, and the rule of law in a democracy.