The state of Gujarat and 11 convicts released at the start of remission in the Bilkis Bano case are now questioning the validity of PILs filed with the Supreme Court against early release for convicts, as well as the stance of those who sued the pill.
The case was heard by a bench headed by Judge BV Nagarathna. Senior Solicitor Sidharth Luthra and Solicitor Rishi Malhotra presented arguments on behalf of the convicts, with the additional Solicitor General, representing the State of Gujarat, supporting the convicts' objections to the validity of the PIL.
ASG SV Raju, representing Gujarat, argued that surrender only relieves one sentence and that litigation in the public interest cannot be based on a verdict. Raju adds that remission does not change the character of the sentence; It concerns the accused, the court, and the prosecution. Referring to the 2003 ruling, he argued that a third party could not have a say in determining the amount of the verdict.
Luthra emphasized that third-party elements should not exist in criminal proceedings or related actions arising therefrom. He pointed out that the consistent view is not to interfere or interfere in criminal proceedings by third parties.
Noting that two of the PIL petitioners are politicians, Luthra emphasized that PIL should not be filed for political purposes. He pointed out that while the court considers surrender as an administrative order, the exercise of power remains under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). Luthra wondered if a third party could challenge an individual's liberties.
Luthra also argued that justice is served when a person is convicted by a court and that social impact cannot be a basis for challenging surrender. Attorney Rishi Malhotra argued that the PIL challenged the surrender decree without assessing its content. He referred to a judgment stating that third parties cannot file such claims in criminal cases, but the court noted that the cases cited were separate from the current case.
Judge Nagarathna stressed that this case does not challenge the verdict and sentence; instead, he is defying an administrative surrender order. She points out that a third party cannot challenge a trust. Regarding Malhotra's argument for a violation of fundamental rights, the arbitral tribunal noted that in the PIL, the fundamental rights of petitioners are not questioned. If their fundamental rights are in question, it will be in self-interest, not the DIP.
The court reiterated that a disputing relief order is an administrative order and that anyone challenging the administrative order must meet the standing test. Malhotra refers to the Nirbhaya case, in which the PIL disputed youth, and the court ruled that they had no place in a criminal case.
