INTRODUCTION
The Bilkis Bano case, arising from the heinous events during the Gujarat riots of 2002, stands
as a significant landmark case in the pursuit of justice, human rights, and legal reforms within
the Indian context. The case not only unveils the vulnerability of women in conflict zones but
also underscores systemic flaws within the Indian legal system. Bilkis Bano’s quest for
justice faced multifaceted challenges, from societal stigma to institutional barriers, bringing
to light the complexities inherent in addressing crimes of such magnitude.
Supreme court has recently given judgment in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India &
Ors. (2022). The SC set aside its judgment given on 13th May 2022 which gave the power to
the state government of Gujarat to decide the premature release of the 11 life convicts
convicted for the Bilkis Bano rape case. The SC declared its own judgment a nullity and
termed it bad in law
CASE DESCRIPTION
At the height of the infamous Gujarat Riots in February 2002, Ms. Bilkis Bano and her family
fled from their home in Randhikpur village. On March 3rd, 2002, they reached Chappawrwad
village but were ambushed by an armed mob. The men gangraped Ms. Bano and, reportedly,
murdered seven members of her family including her infant daughter. She approached the
local police to file a complaint. However, the police initially refused to lodge an FIR. When
they finally deigned to do so, the police omitted several important details including the names
of many of the assailants.
In December 2003, Ms. Bano approached the Supreme Court with the aid of the National
Human Rights Commission. The SC ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to
investigate Ms. Bano’s allegations. The trial initially began in January 2004 at a Trial Court
in Ahmedabad. However, the SC transferred the case to a special CBI Court in Bombay after
Ms. Bano submitted that she was receiving death threats and was concerned that she would
not receive a fair trial in Gujarat. In 2008, the Special Court convicted 13 of the 20 people
accused. 11 convicts received life sentences and 7 were acquitted for lack of evidence. On
appeal, the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of all the accused in May 2017.
In March 2022, Mr. Radheshyam Bhagwan Das Shah (one of the convicts) approached the
SC seeking a remission of his sentence which would result in an early release. He claimed
that the Gujarat State Government had an obligation to consider his early release as per the
states’ 1992 remission policy. State governments may enact remission policies to allow
individuals or certain classes of individuals to file applications for early release from prison.
The State of Gujarat opposed the petition, claiming Mr. Shah was convicted by the Bombay
HC. Hence, the Maharashtra government should make any decisions regarding remission. In
May 2022, the Bench comprising Justices A. Rastogi and V. Nath directed the Gujarat
government to consider his remission application in accordance with the 1992 policy.
In August 15th, 2022, during Independence Day celebrations, the Gujarat government
accepted the remission applications for all 11 convicts who were sentenced to life
imprisonment. The Gujarat government stated that they were granted early release in
accordance with the 1992 policy, citing the ‘good conduct’ of the convicts while imprisoned.Their release was promptly met with widespread criticism and protest from journalists, civil
society organisations and citizens. Critics have noted that the convicts did not complete 14
years in prison at the time of their release—a requirement for early release under the 1992
policy. Further, despite the claims of ‘good conduct’, nine of the convicts reportedly violated
their parole and one was charged with molestation while he was out on parole.
Later that same month, Bilkis Bano, Communist Party (Marxist) leader Subhashini Ali
challenged the Gujarat government’s decision. Professor Roop Rekha Verma and journalist
Revati Laul are co-petitioners as well. They claim that the Gujarat government’s decision to
release 11 convicts at once was ‘premature’ and ‘mechanical’. Each individual application
has to considered separately instead of releasing all 11 convicts ‘en masse’. They also claim
the Gujarat government should have consulted the Union before remitting the convicts’
sentences as they were convicted by a CBI Special Court, which is a central agency. Further,
the petitioners claim that the crimes were so heinous that no ‘right-thinking’ public authority
could grant remission.
The case was heard by a Bench comprising Justices K.M Joseph and B.V Nagrathna on May
23rd, 2023. The Bench served notice to all the parties and listed the case for hearing on April
18th, 2023.
On August 7th, 2023, a Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan started
hearing the challenge On October 12th, 2023, the Bench reserved judgement after 11 days of regular hearings.
On January 8th, 2024, the Bench held that the remission granted to the 11 convicts was
illegal. It stated that the Gujarat government was the incompetent authority to consider
remission and that it was the Maharashtra government who could do so.
On September 26th, 2024, the Bench dismissed a review petition by the Gujarat government
which sought the removal of remarks against the Gujarat government. Some of the remarks
stated that the government had “abused its discretion” and “acted in tandem” with the
convicts. It also stated that the government tried to “usurp” the authority of the Maharashtra
government. In a four-page order, the Bench stated that there was no apparent error which
would warrant a reconsideration of the judgement.
WHAT ARE THE FACTS OF BILKIS BANO CASE?
FILING OF PETITION:
Writ petitions were filed in SC assailing the Orders of State of Gujarat dated
10th August 2022, granting remission and early release of 11 convicts who were
all convicted, having been found guilty of committing heinous crimes during
the large-scale riots in Gujarat on 28th February 2002 and a few days thereafter
which occurred in the aftermath of the burning of the train incident in Godhra in
the State of Gujarat on 27th February 2002.
FACTS MENTIONED IN BILKIS BANO PETITION:
o The petition was related to brutally gang raping the petitioner Bilkis Yakub Rasool, who was pregnant at that time.
o Further, the petitioner’s mother was gang raped and murdered, and her cousin who had just delivered a baby was also gang raped and murdered.
o Eight minors including the petitioner’s cousin’s two-day-old infant were also murdered.
o The petitioner’s three-year-old daughter was murdered by smashing her head on a rock, her two minor brothers, two minor sisters, her phupha
(paternal uncle), phupi (aunt), mama (maternal uncle) and three cousins were all murdered.
o The Special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court sentenced 11 accused to life imprisonment on the grounds of conspiring rape of a pregnant woman, murders, and unlawful assembly under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 21st January 2008.
Other Petitions Filed Before Court:
Several Petitions were filed in the name of Dr Meeran Chadha Borwankar v. State of Gujarat (2002), Subhashini Ali v. State of Gujarat (2022), Mahua Moitra v. State of Gujarat (2022), National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) v. State of Gujarat (2022), Asma Shafique Shaikh v. State of Gujarat (2022) and by the victim herself against the order of Gujarat Government on 10th August 2022.
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BILKIS BANO CASE?
Whether the remission granted to the 11 convicts was per law?
Whether the writ petition by Bilkis Bano was maintainable?
Whether the Public Interest Litigations filed by third-parties against the remission
were maintainable?
Whether the Gujarat government was the appropriate government for considering
remission?
WHAT WERE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS
Conviction was Done by Maharashtra Court:
o Petitioners said that once a competent Court in the State of Maharashtra had tried and convicted the accused then that State is the ‘appropriate Government’.
o Therefore, the Orders of remission passed by the State of Gujarat in respect of 11 convicts are without jurisdiction and nullity and thus, are liable to be quashed.
Remission Policy of 1992:
o The petitioner submitted that since the ‘appropriate government’ in the instant case is the State of Maharashtra, the remission policy of the State of Maharashtra would be applicable.
o Thus, the remission policy of the State of Gujarat dated 09th July 1992 would be wholly inapplicable.
o The Remission Policy of 1992 of State of Gujarat was applied for these remissions as then the remission policy of 2014 did not come into force.
o The Remission Policy of 1992 did not exempt rape convicts from getting the benefit of remission
WHAT WAS THE MAJOR DEFENCE OF STATE OF GUJRAT?
The State of Gujarat in its affidavit said that if a policy which is beneficial to the convict
exists at the time of consideration of the application of premature release, then the convict
cannot be deprived of such beneficial policy and that judicial review of the order of
remission is not permissible in law.
WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF SUPREME COURT ON THE BILKIS BANO JUDGMENT?
Appropriate Government:
o If the State of Gujarat had filed an application seeking review of the said order
stating that it was not the “appropriate Government” but the State of
Maharashtra was the “appropriate Government”, ensuing litigation would not
have arisen at all.
o On the other hand, in the absence of filing any review petition seeking a
correction of the order passed by SC on 13th May 2022, the State of Gujarat
herein has usurped the power of the State of Maharashtra and has passed
the impugned orders of remission is in court’s view a nullity in law.
Nullified the Order of 13th May 2022:
o The judgment dated 13th May 2022 passed by SC is a nullity and is non est in
law since the said order was sought by suppression of material facts as well
as by misrepresentation of facts and therefore, fraudulently obtained at the
hands of SC.
Surrender in Jail:
SC directed the beneficiaries of remission to report to the concerned jail
authorities within two weeks.
Allocation of events:
The Bilkis Bano case underwent a series of legal proceedings that spanned several years. The
survivor, Bilkis Bano, sought justice against the offenders who had committed heinous crimes
against her and her family. A brief overview of the judgments in the Bilkis Bano case is as
follows:
Trial Court Judgment (2008):
Thirteen individuals in the case were convicted on charges of rape, murder, and conspiracy, out of which the trial court initially convicted 11 individuals for the gang rape and murder of Bilkis Bano’s family members.
In its verdict, the court recognized the gravity of the crimes and held the accused accountable for their actions during the communal violence.
High Court Judgment (2017):
In 2017, the Bombay High Court upheld the convictions of the 11 accused while
setting aside the acquittal of several others who had been charged earlier.
The High Court’s decision reinforced the seriousness of the crimes and affirmed the
need for accountability, providing a measure of justice for Bilkis Bano.
Compensation and Relief (2019):
Following the legal proceedings, Bilkis Bano was awarded compensation and additional relief by the Supreme Court of India in 2019.
The compensation included financial support and assistance for rehabilitation, acknowledging the trauma and hardship faced by the survivor
Landmark Supreme Court Judgment (2019):
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court not only affirmed the convictions but also criticized the state authorities for their role in attempting to cover up the crimes and shield the accused.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for accountability not only for the perpetrators but also for those involved in obstructing justice.
Symbolic Compensation (2020):
In 2020, Bilkis Bano was awarded symbolic compensation by the Supreme Court as a form of
acknowledgment for the lapses in the initial investigation and the subsequent challenges
faced by the survivor in seeking justice.
The Bilkis Bano case, through its legal journey, has not only resulted in the conviction of
those directly responsible for the crimes but has also contributed to judicial discourse on
accountability for mass crimes. The judgments have highlighted the importance of a robust
legal system in addressing atrocities, ensuring justice for survivors, and holding both
offenders and complicit authorities accountable for their actions.
In the year 2023:
When Bilkis Bano learned about the release of the convicts on remission, she filed a review
petition in the Supreme Court with several CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali, independent
journalist Revati Laul, and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, who also submitted a
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the ground of remission of the 11 convicts by the Gujarat
government, which allowed them to walk out of jail freely after committing the horrendous
crime of gangraping the victim and all the women in her family and murdering 14 family
members.
On 18th April, 2023, the Supreme Court of India slammed the Gujarat Government for the
premature release of the rape and murder accused convicts.
Justice K. M. Joseph stated that it is the Government’s responsibility to exercise its power in
a way that is beneficial for the people of the State. He went further and asked the Gujarat
Government whether they were comparing the murder of 14 helpless people who were the
victim’s family members with the murder of a single person. He also said that a massacre can
in no way be compared with the murder of a single person.
The Gujarat government and the Centre decided to challenge the order passed by the Court. It
was done by them by submitting a review petition on 27th March, 2023. But the bench was
strongly against such a proposal. Hence, they disapproved of it. The Supreme Court gave
them time so that they could decide whether to submit the review petition or not. The Court
also asked them for a time extension of parole that has been granted to the convicts during
their life imprisonment sentence. It was also observed by the Court that the State
Government’s power to grant remission could not be amended by judicial review unless and
until the remission order was given arbitrarily by the government.
Plea for Remission
Radheshyam Shah, one of the convicts in the case, approached the Apex Court and requested
that it release him on remission as he had already spent 15 years and 4 months in prison. His
lawyer argued that though he was given life imprisonment by a CBI Court in Mumbai, he has
the right to apply for premature release on remission after completing 14 years in jail. He was
sentenced to life imprisonment in 2008, and so he moved to the Court seeking remission as
he had already completed a 14-year sentence that was considered the period of life
imprisonment.
The Supreme Court, after hearing the convict’s arguments, gave the power to the Gujarat
Government to decide whether he could be granted release in accordance with the 1992
Gujarat remission policy within two months or not.
The plea for remission was filed by one of the convicts mentioned above in the Gujarat High
Court in 2022 under Section 432 and Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Gujarat High Court could not accept the plea for remission as the case was not under its
jurisdiction. Since the case was moved to the Mumbai Court and the trial was held there, the
plea for remission can only be granted by the Mumbai Court.
When he moved to the Supreme Court with the plea for remission and pleaded that he had
spent more than 15 years in prison, the Court held that the Gujarat High Court had the right to
deal with the remission policy of the convict as Gujarat was the State of occurrence of the
incident and the remission policy of the year 1992 would be followed and not the 2014 one.
A committee was formed by the government, as stated by the Supreme Court, to look into the
issue of remission. The committee came to a unanimous decision in favour of the remission
of all the convicts in the case and decided to grant them release. The Prime Minister of India
approved their remission plea and ordered the premature release of all the convicts. This
decision caused global outrage as the convicts had gang-raped a pregnant Muslim woman and
murdered her family members without showing a bit of mercy.
But a significant judgement from the Supreme Court, where the court ordered the 11 men
convicted in Bilkis Bano’s gangrape case back to prison, quashing Gujarat government’s
remission order from 2022, helped in proving that injustice doesn’t prevail. The Supreme
Court came down heavily on the Gujarat government for abusing its discretion and acting “in
tandem” with the convicts.
EARLY RELEASE OF BILKIS BANO GANGRAPE CONVICTS
On 8 January 2024, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court set aside remission orders
granting premature release to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case. The 251-page
judgement was authored by Justice B.V. Nagrathna where she directed the 11 convicts to return
to prison within two weeks.
The judgement centred around issues of maintainability of petitions, the authority of the
Gujarat government to grant remission, and the personal liberty of the convicts. The
judgement favoured the petitioners in all of these aspects.
Bilkis Bano “rightly approached” the Supreme Court under Article 32
The Judgement upheld the maintainability of Bano’s petition. It stated that Article 32 is the
“soul of the Constitution” used for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Bano approached
the top court for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 (right to equality)
and 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
Senior Advocate S. Guru Krishna Kumar had argued that Bano should have approached the
Gujarat High Court under Article 226. This keeps the remedy of appeal in the Supreme Court
as a second option. Justice Nagarathna wrote that Bano’s petition could not be dismissed on
the grounds of an alternative remedy.
Justice Nagarathna pointed out “another stronger reason” for upholding the maintainability of
the petition. Radhe Shyam, one of the convicts, had approached the Supreme Court under
Article 32 praying for the Gujarat government to consider his remission. On 13 May 2022,
the Supreme Court directed the Gujarat government to consider remission under the 1992
Gujarat Policy.
Relying on the above facts, the judgement stated that the Gujarat High Court would not have
been in the position to entertain the petition in light of the Supreme Court direction issued in
May 2022. This justifies Bano’s petition as it also dealt with the question of “appropriate
government.”
Maintainability of PILs challenging remission unanswered
The judgement kept the question of maintainability of Public Interest Litigations (PILs)
open.
After the convicts were granted remission, several members of civil society filed PILs
challenging the release. The Gujarat government and the convicts challenged these PILs
contending that the petitioners cannot involve themselves in a criminal trial. The petitioners
had justified these PILs by arguing that remission orders can affect society at large.
Additionally, the merits of remission were a part of the administrative domain and not a
criminal case. Without missing a beat, they also pointed out that the heinous nature of the
offences in question warranted these PILs.
The judgement held that the merits of the remission orders were considered under the petition
by Bano. It stated that the maintainability of PILs was an “academic” discussion which need
not be answered in the present case.
Maharashtra government competent to consider remission of convicts
The judgement held that the “appropriate government” under Section 432(7) of the Criminal
Procedure code, 1973 would be the place of trial and sentence of the offender. It would not be
the place where the trial was conducted, as submitted by the Gujarat government. Further, the
opinion of the presiding judge of the convicting court plays a critical role when a convict
makes an application for remission. In the present instance, the convicting court and its
presiding judge were both in Maharashtra.
Bano’s trial was transferred to a special court in Maharashtra owing to concerns of fairness
and witness protection. Noting these details, the judgement held that the place of crime and
imprisonment cannot be a consideration. Additionally, it held that the definition of
“appropriate government” also covers instances “wherein the trial is transferred by this
Court…in the interest of justice from one State to another State.”
Reliance was placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v Ratan Singh (1976) where the Supreme
Court held that the convicting state of Madhya Pradesh would be the “appropriate
government” even if the convict was discharging his sentence in Punjab. It also relied on
Union of India v V. Sriharan (2016) where a Constitution Bench reinforced the above
definition of “appropriate government.”
Justice Nagarathna wrote that the Gujarat government should have dismissed the remission
application on these grounds alone.
Convicts played a “fraud” on the Supreme Court
The judgement declared that the May 2022 Order of the Supreme Court directing the Gujarat
government to consider remission was per incuriam i.e. not based on law or fact. The Order
did not consider V. Sriharan.
Justice Nagarathna reasoned that Radheshyam, the convict behind the May 2022 petition,
suppressed critical facts when he approached the Supreme Court. He had also approached
the Maharashtra government to consider his remission application after the Gujarat High
Court dismissed his petition. In Maharashtra, his application met with negative
recommendations by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Special Judge (CBI),
Mumbai from the convicting court. Further, the Superintendent of Police and the District
Magistrate of Dahod recommended against his release.
Radheshyam had contended that there was a “diametrically opposite” view of the Gujarat
High Court and the Bombay High Court on his remission petition. The judgement also
pointed out that Radheshyam suppressed key facts regarding the nature of the two petitions.
The opposite view held by the Bombay High Court was in a petition where the question of
remission was not even an issue. It dealt with the transfer of the convicts from Maharashtra to
a prison in their home state of Gujarat. Justice Nagarathna noted that Radheshyam had
suppressed the backgrounds of these petitions as well.
Lastly, the judgement held that the proceedings for remission started only through
Radheshyam. This means that there was no direction to consider the remission of any other
convicts.
As the May 2022 Order was declared a nullity, all subsequent developments would also be
withdrawn. This means that the Gujarat government’s order of remission—a direct result of
the May 2022 order—stood quashed.
Gujarat government was “complicit” in the fraud
“The State of Gujarat has acted in tandem and was complicit,” stated the judgement. In
Radheshyam’s petition, the Gujarat government had taken a different stance. It argued that
the Maharashtra government was the “appropriate government” to consider remission. Justice
Nagarathna wrote that the “appropriate government” should exercise the power to grant
remission “in accordance with the law” and not in an “arbitrary or perverse manner without
regard to the actual facts.”
The judgement claimed that the Gujarat government did not file a review petition to correct
the May 2022 order of the Supreme Court. It claimed that “ensuing litigation would not have
arisen at all” if the Gujarat government had informed the Supreme Court of this error.
Further, as no such review petition was filed, the Gujarat government usurped the power of
the Maharashtra government. Subsequently, other convicts who were not involved in the
petitions also filed remission applications relying on the May 2022 Order.
No liberty at the cost of rule of law
Until the remission orders were set aside, they bore the stamp of validity resulting in more than a year-and-a-half of freedom for the convicts. A question faced by the Supreme Court was whether the personal liberty of the convicts under Article 21 should be protected i.e. should they be allowed to continue their freedom?
One of Bano’s arguments was that the convicts should be sent back to prison because the rule of law had been complied with. The judgement accepted the argument, holding the liberty of a person can only be protected in accordance of the law. It stated that liberty and other fundamental rights will only prevail if rule of law is established. Further, it iterated the role of the Supreme Court in acting as “a beacon in upholding rule of law.”
Adopting this reasoning, the judgement held that the convicts cannot be allowed to stay out of jail as it would be a violation of the rule of law. It also pointed out that “emotional appeals” about liberty and reformation “become hollow and without substance” when juxtaposed with the abuse of process.
The convicts were directed to report back to the jail authorities within two weeks of the judgement.
Role of Rule of Law in the Bilkis Bano case:
The Bilkis Bano case is significant not only for the heinous crime it involves but also for the
application of the rule of law in ensuring justice for the victim.
After quashing the decision of Gujarat Government to grant remission to the convicts in the
Bilkis Bano case, The Hon’ble Supreme court explained the concept of Rule of Law, stating
that whenever the state fails to perform their duty the court will undoubtedly step in to ensure
that the rule of law prevails over the abuse of the process of law.
Few judgements referred:
Public Faith in the Legal System:
Upholding the rule of law is crucial for maintaining public faith in the legal system. The Bilkis Bano case, by delivering justice and holding the guilty accountable, contributed to rebuilding trust in the legal processes and institutions.
In summary, the Bilkis Bano case exemplifies the application of the rule of law by ensuring accountability, impartiality, protection of victim’s rights, prevention of impunity, and fostering public trust in the legal system. The case serves as a testament to the importance of upholding these principles in delivering justice, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes and communal violence.
Referring to Justice H R Khanna’s dissenting judgment in ADM, Jabalpur vs. Shivakanta Shukla (1976), the court noted that “rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrariness”.
Citing its 2014 ruling in Surya Baksh Singh vs. State of UP, the court noted that the concept of justice includes not just the convict’s rights but also those of the victims and the law-abiding sections of society that consider courts as “vital instruments for preservation of peace” and curtailment of crime. If convicts “can circumvent the
consequences of their conviction, peace, tranquillity and harmony in society will be reduced to chimera,” it said.
Rejecting the convict’s plea for protection of liberty, the court held that the rule of law must prevail and the orders of remission be set aside. “We say that Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be invoked by us in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 13 to allow them to remain out of jail as that would be an instance of this court’s imprimatur to ignore rule of law and instead aid persons who are beneficiaries of orders which in our view, are null and void and therefore non-Est in the eye of law,” the court ruled.
Complying with the principle of the rule of law which includes the principle of equal protection of law, as given under Article 14, the court held that “deprivation of liberty” vis-àvis respondent Nos. 3 to 13 is justified, as they had erroneously been set at liberty, contrary to the law.
The rule of law is a fundamental principle that emphasizes the equal application of laws,
accountability, and fair treatment under the legal system. Here’s how the rule of law played a
role in the Bilkis Bano case:
Accountability for Perpetrators:
The rule of law requires that individuals who commit crimes be held accountable for their
actions. In the Bilkis Bano case, the legal system worked towards identifying and convicting
the perpetrators of the gang rape and the accompanying violence during the 2002 Gujarat
riots. This demonstrated a commitment to accountability regardless of the identity or position
of the accused.
Impartiality of the Judiciary:
The rule of law emphasizes the impartiality of the judicial system. In this case, the Bombay
High Court and later the Supreme Court of India played a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial.
The courts took a strong stance against the accused, including police officers and doctors,
highlighting that justice should be blind to the background or status of the individuals
involved.
Protection of Victim’s Rights:
The rule of law also emphasizes the protection of individual rights, especially for victims. In
the Bilkis Bano case, the legal proceedings focused on providing justice and compensation to
the survivor. This reinforced the principle that every individual, regardless of their
background, is entitled to protection and redress under the law.
Preventing Impunity:
The rule of law seeks to prevent impunity by ensuring that no one is above the law. In the
Bilkis Bano case, the legal system aimed to dismantle any structures or individuals
attempting to shield the perpetrators from accountability. This sends a strong message that
even those in positions of power or authority cannot escape legal consequences for their
actions.
Global Impact of Bilkis Bano case:
The Bilkis Bano case has had both national and international significance, shedding light on
issues such as communal violence, human rights violations, and the quest for justice. Here are
some aspects of its global impact:
Human Rights Concerns:
The case drew attention to human rights violations, particularly the crime of sexual violence
against women in conflict situations. Bilkis Bano’s story highlighted the need for global
awareness and action to address such violations and ensure justice for the victims.
International Criticism and Advocacy:
The case prompted international human rights organizations and advocates to criticize the
handling of the 2002 Gujarat riots and subsequent legal proceedings. The global community
expressed concerns about the protection of minority rights and the need for accountability
Pressure for Accountability:
The Bilkis Bano case, along with other incidents during the 2002 Gujarat riots, contributed to
the international call for accountability and justice. Advocacy groups urged the Indian
government to ensure that perpetrators of violence, regardless of their religious or political
affiliations, were held accountable for their actions.
Impact on India’s Image:
The case had implications for India’s international image, with concerns raised about the
protection of minority rights and the ability of the legal system to address and rectify
instances of communal violence.
Legal Precedent:
The legal proceedings and convictions in the Bilkis Bano case set a precedent in terms of
prosecuting individuals for crimes committed during communal violence. It highlighted the
importance of holding perpetrators accountable, even years after the occurrence of the crimes.
Gender Justice Advocacy:
The case also contributed to the broader global discourse on gender justice and the need for
legal systems to address crimes of sexual violence effectively. It underscored the importance
of ensuring that survivors of sexual violence have access to justice and that perpetrators are
held accountable.
In summary, the Bilkis Bano case had a global impact by bringing attention to issues of
human rights, communal violence, and the quest for justice, contributing to international
discussions on accountability and the protection of minority rights.
CONCLUSION:
The Bilkis Bano case stands as a poignant testament to the resilience of an individual seeking
justice in the face of unspeakable brutality. As we conclude our exploration of the Bilkis
Bano case, several key points merit reflections.
Firstly, the case underscores the pervasive vulnerability of women in conflict zones,
particularly during communal violence. Bilkis Bano’s experience serves as a stark reminder
of the intersectionality of gender and communal tensions, highlighting the urgent need for a
more nuanced and responsive legal framework that addresses the specific challenges faced by
survivors of sexual violence in such contexts.
Secondly, the legal proceedings surrounding the Bilkis Bano case have shed light on the
deficiencies within the Indian Judicial system. The delays, attempts at cover-ups, and
challenges faced by the survivor in her pursuit of justice expose the need for systemic
reforms. The establishment of fast-track courts, witness protection programs, and enhanced
training for law enforcement and legal professionals are imperative to ensure that survivors
do not endure prolonged suffering in their quest for justice.
The judgments in the Bilkis Bano case, particularly the landmark Supreme Court judgment,
represent a significant step towards accountability. By not only convicting the perpetrators
but also criticizing state authorities for their role in obstructing justice, the judiciary has sent a
powerful message about the importance of holding both direct perpetrators and colluding
authorities accountable for their actions.
Moreover, the symbolic compensation awarded to Bilkis Bano acknowledges not only the
physical and emotional trauma she endured but also the failures of the justice system to
provide timely and effective redress. This recognition serves as a vital step towards restoring
the survivor’s dignity and underscores the need for a victim-centric approach in legal
proceedings.
The international perspective on the Bilkis Bano case reveals commonalities with global
efforts to address mass sexual violence during conflicts. Lessons learned from this case can
contribute to the ongoing discourse on human rights, justice, and the need for comprehensive
legal and societal responses to ensure the prevention and redressal of such heinous crimes.
In conclusion, the Bilkis Bano case serves as a touchstone for evaluating the state of justice,
human rights, and legal reforms in India. It prompts us to reflect on the challenges faced by
survivors of sexual violence in conflict zones, advocate for systemic changes within the legal
apparatus, and strive for a society where justice is swift, impartial, and accessible to all,
irrespective of their circumstances. Bilkis Bano’s courage in seeking justice becomes a
beacon, guiding the way toward a more just and humane society.
Also Read