The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment delivered on 8 January 2024, quashed the premature release of eleven convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang-rape and murder case. A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the Gujarat government lacked the jurisdiction to grant remission, as the competence to do so vested exclusively with the State of Maharashtra under Section 432(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Background
The case arose from one of the most horrific incidents during the 2002 Gujarat communal violence. Bilkis Bano, who was pregnant at the time, was gang-raped and seven members of her family were murdered. The Supreme Court had transferred the trial from Gujarat to a Mumbai sessions court owing to concerns about fair trial, and the convicts were ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment by the Bombay court in 2008.
In August 2022, the Gujarat government granted premature release to all eleven convicts under its remission policy, treating the application under Section 432 CrPC. This decision attracted widespread public criticism and was challenged before the Supreme Court by Bilkis Bano herself and several civil society interveners. The central legal question was whether Gujarat, as the state where the offence occurred, or Maharashtra, as the state where the trial was conducted and the sentence imposed, held jurisdiction to grant remission.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court ruled as follows:
Maharashtra held exclusive jurisdiction: Under Section 432(7) CrPC, the appropriate government for the purpose of granting remission is the government of the State within which the offender was sentenced. Since the trial had been transferred to Maharashtra by the Supreme Court and the sentence was imposed by the Mumbai sessions court, only Maharashtra could consider remission applications.
Gujarat's remission orders void ab initio: The Gujarat government's orders granting premature release were without jurisdiction and therefore null and void from the outset. The State had no authority to entertain, process, or grant the remission applications.
Convicts directed to surrender: All eleven convicts were directed to surrender and return to custody within two weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court declined to grant any further extension of time.
Section 435 CrPC consultation insufficient: The Court observed that even if the Gujarat government had consulted the Central Government under Section 435 CrPC, this did not cure the fundamental jurisdictional defect under Section 432(7).
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment provides definitive clarity on a jurisdictional question that has significant consequences for transferred trial cases across India. Where the Supreme Court or a High Court transfers a criminal trial from one State to another, the sentencing State — not the State of origin — holds exclusive remission jurisdiction. Criminal law practitioners handling remission applications must now verify the locus of sentencing before approaching any State government.
The decision also carries broader implications for the procedural integrity of remission powers. By treating the Gujarat orders as void ab initio rather than merely voidable, the Court signalled that jurisdictional overreach in remission matters will not be treated as a mere irregularity. This raises questions about other cases where remission may have been granted by a non-competent State government, potentially exposing similar orders to challenge.
For victims' rights advocates, the judgment reinforces the principle that victims have locus standi to challenge remission orders, strengthening the participatory framework recognised in prior precedent.