 | « Back to article | Print this article |
'The Supreme Court has now demonstrated its capacity to right its own wrongs, and to place the rule of law above all else.'
'This judgment states loud and clear that if the Supreme Court has made an egregious mistake, it will not hesitate to correct itself in order to render true justice.'
Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh tells Prasanna D Zore/Rediff.com why the judgment delivered by Supreme Court Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan annulling the remission granted to 11 convicted rapists by the Gujarat government, despite not setting any new legal principles or jurisprudence, is still a landmark judgement.
Does Bilkis Bano stand vindicated now -- the same Supreme Court rejected her review petition in December 2022 which she had filed against grant of remission to 11 convicts who gang-raped her in the communal violence that devoured Gujarat in February-March 2002 -- after last week's judgement annulling the remission of these 11 rape convicts?
There is no doubt that Bilkis Bano -- now Bilkis Yakoob Rasul -- stands vindicated, but more importantly, it is the judicial system and the judiciary that has vindicated itself.
Having been gulled into delivering the unfortunate judgment of May 13, 2022 that allowed one of the convicts to seek remission of the life sentence from the Gujarat government, and that too under a long-since-defunct policy, and having then committed the egregious error of rejecting Bilkis's review petition in December 2022, the Supreme Court has now demonstrated its capacity to right its own wrongs, and to place the rule of law above all else.
How do you look at Bilkis Bano's fight for justice in the light of the Supreme Court ruling of January 8, 2024?
It's difficult even to imagine the courage and steely resolve that Bilkis has demonstrated over the course of 21 years. The only word that comes to mind is indomitable, but that too seems inadequate.
She has fought back from every reversal, weathered every storm, built up a second life and a family with Yakub Rasul, but even that life has been one of nomads unable to return to their own villages, living in constant fear of reprisals.
But she has never given up hope, never relented on her quest for justice. And justice she has got, despite all the ups and downs: first from the trial court and the Bombay high court in the original trial that led to life sentences for 13 persons, and also lesser sentences for police officials and medical officers who tried to bury the evidence; then from the Supreme Court, which summarily dismissed all appeals in that first innings.
She then got a small measure of succour when the Supreme Court entertained her plea for reparations, and directed the Gujarat government to pay her compensation of Rs 50 lakh and to provide her a safe abode.
And when it appeared that the state had struck back with a vengeance by granting remissions to the 13 perpetrators of these horrific crimes, the Supreme Court finally rose to the occasion with this amazing judgment heralding the New Year.
In your column for The Hindu soon after the Supreme Court judgment of December 13, 2022 rejected Bilkis Bano's review petition you had stated that the Supreme Court had then missed an opportunity to redress an egregious error.
What would you have to say after the Supreme Court's January 8, 2024 judgment annulling the remission of the same 11 gang-rapists?
In my view the Supreme Court has more than redeemed itself.
This is a judgment for the ages; one that I think will define the Court and its capacity for self-correction and dispensing true justice.
What are the most salient points of this judgment that would establish solid legal jurisprudence and help victims of horrendous atrocities -- like Bilkis Bano -- for times to come?
This is not a judgment that creates or lays down new legal principles or a new jurisprudence. It is, rather, a strong and unabashed reaffirmation of the rule of law, using established legal and jurisdictional principles to make it clear that the Supreme Court will not stand for chicanery and fraud, will not allow itself to be misled or conned by unscrupulous litigants.
Most of all, it is a judgment that states loud and clear that if the Supreme Court has made an egregious mistake, it will not hesitate to correct itself in order to render true justice.
Should the Supreme Court have given a period of 15 days for the 11 convicted rapists to surrender?
Why couldn't they have been arrested or put in jail immediately after the Supreme Court judgment became public?
The Bench made it very clear that it was not going to deviate from the principle that sentencing and imprisonment are not for vengeance or retribution, but are most of all an attempt or quest for reformation. The grant of some reasonable time to surrender is entirely consistent with this approach.