Image Credits - AFP
The Supreme Court of India recently overturned the remission granted to 11 Hindu men convicted for the heinous gang rape of Bilkis Bano and the brutal murder of her relatives during anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat back in 2002. The apex court issued a directive, compelling the men to surrender to prison authorities within a two-week timeframe, firmly rejecting their plea for the protection of their liberty. The court emphasized that excluding them would run contrary to the principles of the rule of law.
Bilkis Bano, who was five months pregnant at the time of the incident, endured unspeakable violence during the riots that claimed the lives of nearly 2,000 people, predominantly Muslims. Among the 14 people murdered, seven were Bano’s relatives, including her three-year-old daughter, who was killed in Gujarat’s Dahod district.
The release of the convicted individuals by the Gujarat government in August 2022 sparked widespread condemnation, coinciding with India’s Independence Day celebrations. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who was the Chief Minister of Gujarat during the riots, spoke about women’s safety and security during the same period.
The recent ruling by the Supreme Court is viewed as a significant step towards justice for Bilkis Bano. Her uncle expressed relief, underscoring that the wounds from the 2002 riots are still fresh. Minority rights activist Kaleem Siddiqui accused the BJP government of releasing the men for political gain ahead of state elections, urging future administrations not to shield the accused.
The opposition Congress party welcomed the court’s decision, condemning the BJP’s “callous disregard for women.” The verdict emphasized that justice should not depend on religion or caste of the victim or perpetrator, reaffirming the rule of law as the cornerstone of Indian democracy.
Legal experts, including lawyer Vrinda Grover, who represented Bano in court, lauded the judgment as significant. The court held that Gujarat lacked the authority to reduce the sentence of the 11 men, emphasizing that emotional arguments become hollow when contrasted with the concrete facts of the case.