Bilkis Bano case: Convict questions maintainability of plea in SC

A convict in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case has questioned the locus standi of the petitioners who have challenged in the Supreme Court the remission given to him and 10 other convicts in the case saying they are complete strangers in the matterIn his counteraffidavit Radhey Shyam who was recently released by the Gujarat government on remission said that none of the petitioners are related to the case and are either political activists or third party strangerQuestioning the maintainability of the petition he said if such petitions are entertained by the court it would be an open invitation for any member of the public to jump in any criminal matter before any court of lawThat at the very outset the answering respondent seriously questions the locus as well as maintainability of the instant writ petition which has been filed by a political activist or in other words a complete stranger to the instant case he saidHe pointed out that the in the PIL questioning his release petitioner number one CPIM leader Subhashini Ali claims to be a former parliamentarian and Vice President of the All India Democratic Womens AssociationHe noted that petitioner no 2 Revati Laul claims to be an independent journalist whereas petitioner no 3 Roop Rekha Verma claims to be a former Vice Chancellor Lucknow UniversityThe affidavit said That with great respect and humility the answering respondent submits that if such types of third party petitions are entertained by this court it would not only unsettle the settled position of law but would also open flood gates and would be an open invitation for any member of the public to jump in any criminal matter before any court of lawShyam said that the top court has categorically held in earlier cases that a total stranger in a criminal case cannot be permitted to question the correctness of a decision and if that was to be permitted any and every person could challenge a criminal prosecution proceedings recorded day in and day out by courts even if the person convicted does not desire to do so and is inclined to acquiesce in the decisionAlso ReadUttarakhand receptionist murder Protesters block RishikeshBadrinath highwayThus it was further held that unless an aggrieved party was under some disability recognised by law it would be unsafe and hazardous to allow any third party to question the decision against him he said in his affidavit filed through advocate Rishi MalhotraHe said that since the 1992 verdict in Janata Dal versus HS Chowdhary a view which was reiterated and followed in Subramanian Swamy versus Raju in 2013 the top court has consistently held in clear terms that a third party who is a total stranger to the prosecution has no locus standi in criminal matters and has no right whatsoever in filing a petition under Article 32 of the ConstitutionAccordingly this court while considering the fact that the conviction in this present case by the trial court had occurred in the year 2008 and by that time the State of Gujarats premature policy dated July 9 1992 was in operation the State Government was directed to consider the application for premature release in terms of the policy dated July 9 1992 it saidThe affidavit said that in this present writ petition the petitioners seek to challenge the remission order of the State of Gujarat whereby 11 accused persons including the answering respondent were releasedIn Para 1B the writ petitioner has pleaded that she has no personal interest in the matter and does not stand to gain anything from the filing of the sameIt is further submitted that the writ petition has been filed purely in the public interest and according to the petitioner the release of such persons has shocked the consciousness of the society which has prompted the petitioner to file this Public Interest Litigation it saidThe affidavit said that interestingly enough neither the State nor the victim nor even the complainant has approached this Court and thus it is respectfully submitted that if such cases are sought to be entertained by this court a settled position of law would certainly become an unsettled position of lawThe remission and consequent release of 11 convicts on August 15 this year from Godhra subjail under the Gujarat governments remission policy has sparked a debate on the issue of such relief in heinous cases The convicts had completed more than 15 years in jailOn August 25 the top court had sought responses from the Centre and the Gujarat government to the petition challenging the remission granted to the 11 convicts in the caseIt had asked the petitioners to implead the 11 convicted persons who have been granted remission as parties in the matterTMC MP Mahua Moitra has also filed a separate plea in the top court challenging the grant of remissionBilkis Bano was 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gangraped while fleeing the riots that broke out after the Godhra train burning incident Her threeyearold daughter was among the seven family members killedThe investigation in the case was handed over to the CBI and the trial was transferred to a Maharashtra court by the Supreme CourtA special CBI court in Mumbai had on January 21 2008 sentenced the 11 to life imprisonment on charges of gang rape of Bilkis Bano and murder of seven members of her familyTheir conviction was later upheld by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme CourtThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever