The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the need to entertain public interest litigation (PILs) petitions filed by “third parties” in a case in which the affected person, Bilkis Bano, herself filed a separate petition against the premature release of 11 men convicted of her gangrape and the deaths of seven persons during the Gujarat riots of 2002.
The question from a Bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna came while hearing submissions on the locus standi of the petitioners.
The PIL petitioners include Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, who said the release “completely fails to bolster either social or human justice”; CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali; independent journalist and filmmaker Revati Laul; and former philosophy professor and activist Roop Rekh Varma.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, for one of the petitioners, said the apex court had itself, in February 2023, granted the petitioners permission to participate in the proceedings. She said no application had been made to revoke the permission granted.
She said the term “parties interested” in law had to be given a wide berth. She confronted the allegation made by the released convicts that the PIL petitioners were persons from rival political parties and motivated by political agendas.
She said “political opponents” were the watchdogs of the government in power.
“They have roles to play in the larger public interest inside and outside the House. It was for them to counter the misdeeds and mischiefs of the government in power. They are mouthpiece to voice the grievances of the public at large. They cannot be brushed aside lightly. They are here to uphold the rule of law,” Ms. Jaising submitted.
The BJP-ruled Gujarat government had relied on its remission policy of 1992 to approve the convicts’ applications for remission of the sentence and not the current policy of 2014. The men were released in August last year.
