New Delhi: Asked by Gujarat riots survivor Bilkis Bano’s lawyer about a petition against the remission of convicts who had gang-raped her and killed 14 members of her family, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Wednesday asked her to not “keep mentioning the same thing again and again” and that it was “very irritating.”
Eleven of those accused of gang-raping Bano and killing her relatives, including her toddler daughter, were released from jail on August 15 this year, to celebrations.
Petitions were filed against the remission by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali, independent journalist Revati Laul, activist Roop Rekh Varma, former IPS officer Meeran Chadha Borwankar and some others. In late November Bilkis Bano herself approached the Supreme Court challenging the premature release of the convicts and a review of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment that allowed the Gujarat government to make a decision on the remission of the convicts.
Advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for Bano, told a bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha that the petition against the Gujarat government’s decision to release the prisoners had been listed a day ago, but was not taken up by the court.
“Writ will be listed. Don’t keep mentioning the same thing again and again. Very irritating,” CJI Chandrachud said, according to Bar and Bench.
CJI Chandrachud had earlier said that there was no reason to mention the matter again on Wednesday.
However, one of the judges on the bench – Justice Bela Trivedi – had recused from the matter during the Tuesday hearing. Trivedi was deputed as the Law Secretary of the Gujarat government during 2004-2006, LiveLaw has reported.
Justice Rastogi then asked for the case to be given to a bench which does not comprise of either Justice Trivedi or himself. Justice Rastogi had authored the verdict that allowed the Gujarat government to consider remission pleas of the convicts, which Bano has opposed.
In May, a bench led by Justice Rastogi had said that the Gujarat government had the jurisdiction to consider the remission pleas of the convicts since the crime took place in Gujarat. The apex court bench had overturned Gujarat high court’s earlier ruling that remission pleas must be considered by the state of Maharashtra since the trial was transferred out of Gujarat.
Thus, the bench to which the case had been initially sent was left without judges.
When Gupta pointed out that the matter had not been taken up a day after, the CJI said:
“So what? Don’t keep mentioning this matter again and again. It will be listed. Review [petition] was also circulated yesterday.”
Earlier too, advocate Gupta had asked the CJI as to whether Justice Rastogi would be recusing himself.
To this, the CJI had said, “Only court can decide that. The review has to be heard first. Let it come before Justice Rastogi.”