Supreme Court on Bilkis Bano

Bilkis’ Rapists Release Case: Justice Bela Recuses From Hearing

Justice Bela M Trivedi, Supreme Court judge, on Tuesday, recused herself from hearing the plea filed by Bilkis Bano, challenging the pre-mature release of 11 convicts, who had gang-raped her and murdered her family members during the 2002 Godhra riots.

A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi said the matter be posted before another bench.
Besides filing a petition against the per-mature release of convicts, Bano has also filed a review petition seeking its earlier order by which it had asked the Gujarat government to consider the plea for the remission of one of the convicts.

The review petition was also listed for hearing today before Justice Rastogi in his camber.

As per procedures, review pleas against top court judgments are decided in chambers by circulation by the judges who were part of the judgment under review.

She has filed a review plea against the May order of the Supreme Court which allowed the Gujarat government to apply the 1992 remission Rules.

Bilkis said that even being the victim of the crime, she had no clue about any such process of remission or premature release initiated.

Gujarat’s remission order is a mechanical order of remission by completely ignoring the law requirement as consistently laid down, the plea said.

Earlier, some PILs were filed seeking directions to revoke the remission granted to 11 convicts.

The pleas were filed by the National Federation of Indian Women, whose General Secretary is Annie Raja, Member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) Subhashini Ali, journalist Revati Laul, social activist and professor Roop Rekha Verma, and TMC MP Mahua Moitra.

Gujarat government in its affidavit had defended remission granted to convicts saying they completed 14 years of sentence in prison and their “behaviour was found to be good”.

The State government said it has considered the cases of all 11 convicts as per the policy of 1992 and remission was granted on August 10, 2022, and the Central government also approved the ore-mature release of convicts.

It is pertinent to note that the remission was not granted under the circular governing grant of remission to prisoners as part of the celebration of “Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav”, it has said.

The affidavit stated, “State government considered all the opinions and decided to release 11 prisoners since they have completed 14 years and above in prisons and their behaviour was found to be good.”

The government had also questioned the locus standi of petitioners who filed the PIL challenging the decision saying they were outsiders to the case.

The pleas said they have challenged the order of competent authority of the government of Gujarat by way of which 11 persons who were accused in a set of heinous offenses committed in Gujarat were allowed to walk free on August 15, 2022, pursuant to remission being extended to them.

The remission in this heinous case would be entirely against public interest and would shock the collective public conscience, as also be entirely against the interests of the victim (whose family has publicly made statements worrying for her safety), pleas stated.

The Gujarat government released the 11 convicts, who were sentenced to life imprisonment, on August 15. All the 11 life-term convicts in the case were released as per the remission policy prevalent in Gujarat at the time of their conviction in 2008.

In March 2002 during the post-Godhra riots, Bano was allegedly gang-raped and left to die with 14 members of her family, including her three-year-old daughter. She was five months pregnant when rioters attacked her family in Vadodara. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176

SC Verdict Quota For Economically Weaker Sections

SC Upholds 10% Quota For Economically Weaker Sections In 3:2 Split Verdict

The Supreme Court in a majority judgment on Monday upheld the validity of the Constitution’s 103rd Amendment Act 2019, which provides for 10 percent reservations of the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in higher education and issues of public employment and observed that it does not violate essential features of the Constitution.

A five-judge Constitution bench in a 3:2 upheld the validity of the Constitution’s 103rd Amendment Act 2019, where three judges passed the verdict upholding the Act while CJI UU Lalit concurred with Justice S Ravindra Bhat and passed a dissent order.

Majority bench – Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala upheld the EWS amendment.
Justice Maheshwari said, “the EWS amendment does not violate the equality code or the essential features of the Constitution.”

Justice Bela M Trivedi said, her judgment is in concurrence with Justice Maheshwari and says the EWS quota in the general category is valid and constitutional.

CJI Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala passed the judgment upholding the Act.

The Chief Justice of India UU Lalit said there will be a total of four judgments that will be delivered in the matter.

“There are four judgments to be delivered on the issue relating to the constitutional validity of reservations of the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in higher education and issues of public employment on the basis of financial conditions,” Chief Justice of India UU Lalit said on Monday.

In September last week, the constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice Bela M Trivedi, and Justice JB Pardiwala, reserved the order after all the parties concluded their arguments.

The Constitution Bench was dealing with issues relating to the Constitutional validity of reservations on the basis of economic conditions. The court has begun hearing the matter on September 13 and the hearing was heard for seven days.

The constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019 enabled the State to make reservations in higher education and matters of public employment on the basis of economic criteria alone. The Janhit Abhiyan petition is the lead matter.

Janhit Abhiyan’s matter relates to the challenging constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019 which enabled the State to make reservations in higher education and matters of public employment on the basis of economic criteria alone.

Moreover, the Janhit matter is being heard together with a case filed by the Andhra Pradesh government against the High Court’s decision quashing its decision of granting reservations in education and public service for the entire Muslim population of the State in 2005. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Supreme Court

SC Confirms Death Penalty To Mohammad Arif: Red Fort Attack Case

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the petition of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist Mohammad Arif alias Ashfaq seeking a review of the top court’s earlier order, upholding the death sentence awarded to him in connection with the 2000 Red Fort attack case.

A bench of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Bela M Trivedi confirmed the death penalty sentencing to Mohammad Arif observing that his guilt has been proved.
According to the prosecution, on the night of December 22, 2000, at about 9 pm terrorists belonging to a banned militant organization Lashkar-e-Toiba armed with AK-56 rifles and hand grenades entered the Lal Quila and started firing indiscriminately and gunned down three Army jawans of 7 Rajputana Rifles.

When the personnel of the Quick Army Reaction Team returned the fire, the intruders made good their escape by scaling the rear side boundary wall of the Lal Quila towards the Ring Road side.

The trial court on October 31, 2005, convicted seven accused including Arif, and awarded him the death penalty in the matter. The death sentence was confirmed by the Delhi High Court and thereafter by the Supreme Court.

Arif filed a review petition against the top court judgment upholding his death penalty in the matter. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/