Chief Justice of India 'Irritated' As Bilkis's Lawyer Repeat Plea For New Bench For Remission Challenge

After being asked by the Godhra riots survivor Bilkis Bano's lawyer about a petition against the revocation of convicts who gang-raped her and murdered 14 members in her family, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on December 14, asked her not to "keep mentioning the same thing again and again" and that it was "very irritating."

Petitions were filed against the remission by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali, independent journalist Revati Laul, activist Roop Rekh Varma, former IPS officer Meeran Chadha Borwankar and some others. In late November this year, the victim herself approached the apex Court challenging the premature release of the convicts and also asked for a review of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment that empowered the Gujarat government to make a decision on the remission of the convicts.

Bano's lawyer, Advocate Shobha Gupta, told a bench comprising of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha that the petition against the Gujarat government's decision to release the prisoners was listed a day ago, however, the court did not take it up.

"Writ will be listed. Don't keep mentioning the same thing again and again. Very irritating," said CJI Chandrachud said, according to Bar and Bench.

CJI Chandrachud had earlier said that there was no reason to mention the matter again on Wednesday.

However, one of the judges on the bench – Justice Bela Trivedi – had recused from the matter during the Tuesday hearing. As per reports, Trivedi was deputed as the Law Secretary of the Gujarat government during 2004-2006

Justice Rastogi then asked for the case to be given to a bench which does not comprise of either Justice Trivedi or himself. Justice Rastogi had written the verdict which allowed the Gujarat government to consider remission pleas of the convicts, which Bano later opposed.

In May, a bench led by Justice Rastogi had said that the Gujarat government had the jurisdiction to consider the remission pleas of the convicts since the crime took place in Gujarat. The apex court bench had overruled Gujarat high court's earlier verdict that remission pleas must be considered by the state of Maharashtra since the trial was transferred out of Gujarat.

Thus, the bench to which the case had been initially sent was left without judges.

Earlier too, advocate Gupta had asked the CJI as to whether Justice Rastogi would be recusing himself.

To this, the CJI had said, "Only court can decide that. The review has to be heard first. Let it come before Justice Rastogi."