The role of women in the Bilkis Bano case has been exemplary and deserves to be saluted for their commitment and courage to stand against injustice. Bilkis’ level of resilience was the result of the solidarity of women power she received throughout her over 2-decade long case.
After the Gujarat government’s remission to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case, the three women Subhashini Ali, Roop Rekha Verma and Revati Laul jointly filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the Gujarat government’s remission and release order.
Thereafter, another PIL was filed by now-expelled Trinamool Congress Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra through lawyer Indira Jaising. Then yet another petition was filed by former IPS officer Meeran Chadha Borwankar; her group also included petitioners Jagdeep Chokhar and Madhu Bhandari. Subsequently, Bilkis Bano herself also moved the court against remission through lawyer Sobha Gupta.
The judgment that rejected the remission granted to the convicts, saying it was not within the jurisdiction of the Gujarat government, was on the Bilkis’ petition. On the petition of these women, it was argued by the government that such a petition is not admissible. Eventually, the court said while setting aside the revision that now Bilkis herself has moved and she has a right to move the court. Whether this PIL was admissible or not is now purely an academic question.
Roop Rekha Verma, former Vice-Chancellor, Professor and Head of Philosophy Department andDean, Faculty of Arts, Lucknow University, told Radiance, “In this case, apart from other women, Bilkis Bano herself and her lawyer Shobha Gupta should be saluted for their spirit to fight for justice. Shobha Gupta has been with her without charging even a pie since 2002.”
“The SC judgement uplifted our spirits at a time when our spirits were staggering very low. We were continuously disappointed by judiciary also, which is our last door to knock at for justice. So, at that time judgement coming with absolute adherence to law, keeping the law in its strictest way and also showing a lot of boldness to reflect on the state’s role and the breaches of law during all these years. Such a judgement had been a little unexpected for a long time. It has given a ray of hope that occasionally at least we can give very correct and very bold judgments, which is essential for any democracy,” said the former VC of Lucknow University.
“I wish to salute both the judges, mainly the senior judge who wrote the judgment. But what I suspect is that the legal ground for cancelling the remission has been the lack of lawful channel the convicts had followed to seek permission from that state and the court which had given the judgement of conviction was not approached but rather Gujarat government was approached,” she added.
“So my hunch is that they can now approach the right channel and give political maneuvering and the experience of political maneuvering which I have seen in my life. It is possible that many times, not all the times even justice is a bit dented or affected positively or negatively by political powers or other factors,” she said.
“Now as you know Maharashtra is under the control of the party which was ruling Gujarat. They might now approach the ‘proper channel’. My hunch is that unlawful route was adopted by the convicts because at that time Maharashtra was not ruled by the parties, which could be favorable to them. Yeah, but now the process may facilitate the acceptance of their application and this is my fear,” she argued.
On what next after the convicts apply for remission in Maharashtra Court, Verma said, “If that happens, I don’t think there is any other recourse for us. But if it happens, we will consult lawyers, and explore what other ways we are left with. Just now it’s too early to say.”
On what could be the reason more time sought to surrender which the SC has rejected, she said, “They were just seeking time to manipulate the case and there can be no other interpretation of the whole thing. For all these years, these convicts have hardly lived in jail even after conviction despite having committed two heinous crimes. They were out on parole. Is it not mockery of justice? And now again, they asked for more time to manipulate the case, we welcome the decision of the Supreme Court refusing the convicts seeking more time to surrender because it found no merit in their arguments in the application.”
Revati Laul, who is now an independent journalist earlier worked with the NDTV, told Radiance on the application for next remission by the convicts, “I have faith in the rule of law and in our courts. If the convicts apply for remission, they can only do so via the courts and the precedent is laid out clearly in the present judgment. The opinion of the judge that convicted these men is mandatory. The rule of law shall prevail.”
The remission was legally challenged through Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by prominent women leaders and organisations, including CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali, journalist Revati Laul, Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra, and the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW).