Bilkis Bano Case: Complete Analysis of 2024 INSC 24 — Remission, Section 432 CrPC and Per Incuriam Doctrine
Bilkis Bano Case | Bilkis Yakub Rasool v Union of India 2024 INSC 24 | Remission Quashed | Section 432 CrPC Appropriate Government | Per Incuriam | Fraud on Court | Judiciary Exam Notes | Last Updated July 2026
| Bilkis Bano Case — Key Facts at a Glance: Case Name: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Others Citation: 2024 INSC 24 Decided: 8 January 2024 Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Judgment: 251 pages, authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna What the case decided: Gujarat government’s remission order dated 10 August 2022, releasing 11 convicts sentenced for the gangrape of Bilkis Bano and murder of 7 family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots, was declared a NULLITY — without jurisdiction. Key legal holdings: 1. Maharashtra — not Gujarat — was the “appropriate government” under Section 432(7)(b) CrPC, as the trial and conviction took place in Mumbai. 2. The SC’s May 2022 order directing Gujarat to consider remission was per incuriam — it ignored binding Constitution Bench precedent in V. Sriharan v. Union of India. 3. Convict Radheshyam Shah obtained the May 2022 order by suppression of material facts and misrepresentation — fraud on court. 4. All 11 convicts directed to surrender to jail within two weeks. |
The Bilkis Bano case — formally Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024 INSC 24) — is a landmark Supreme Court judgment that goes well beyond the facts of one criminal case. It decided three distinct legal questions that any judge will face in practice: which state government has the jurisdiction to grant remission when a trial was transferred, what happens to a Supreme Court order that was obtained by fraud, and whether a court can declare its own earlier order a nullity. The answers the Supreme Court gave on 8 January 2024 restate foundational principles of criminal procedure, judicial integrity, and the rule of law.
For judiciary exam candidates, this case is directly examinable in Mains essays on remission of sentence, per incuriam doctrine, appropriate government under CrPC Section 432, and the relationship between fraud on court and binding orders. It is also tested in UPSC GS2 questions on judicial independence and the criminal justice system. The facts are disturbing. The legal questions are precise. Both matter for understanding what the judgment actually decided.
Background — What Happened and How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
The Crime — 3 March 2002
On 3 March 2002, during the communal riots that followed the Godhra train burning of 27 February 2002, a mob attacked a group of people at Randhikpur village in Dahod district, Gujarat. Bilkis Yakub Rasool, 21 years old and five months pregnant, was gang-raped by multiple men. Seven members of her family were murdered — including her three-year-old daughter Saleha. Bilkis survived.
CBI Investigation and Trial Transfer — 2003 to 2008
The initial police investigation in Gujarat was compromised. Bilkis Bano received death threats, and witnesses were intimidated. She approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which took up the matter. The Supreme Court ordered the CBI to take over the investigation and transferred the trial from Gujarat to Mumbai, Maharashtra, in the interest of justice and to ensure a fair trial.
The Special CBI Court in Mumbai convicted 11 accused on 21 January 2008. They were sentenced to life imprisonment for gangrape and murder. The Bombay High Court upheld the convictions. The Supreme Court also confirmed the convictions.
The Remission — 10 August 2022
In 2019, one of the convicts, Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah (also referred to as Radheshyam Lala Vakil), filed an application for premature release on remission grounds. The Gujarat High Court in 2020 rejected his application, holding that the appropriate government to consider remission was Maharashtra — the state where he was convicted and sentenced — not Gujarat.
Radheshyam then approached the Supreme Court. In doing so, he suppressed from the Court that the Gujarat High Court had already decided against him and that he had been given liberty to approach the Bombay High Court. He also suppressed that the Special Judge, Mumbai had in 2021 recommended that Maharashtra’s remission policy was applicable. Relying on the incomplete picture presented, a Supreme Court bench on 13 May 2022 directed the Gujarat government to consider his remission application — treating Gujarat as the appropriate government.
Acting on this direction, and under its 1992 Premature Release Policy, the Gujarat government granted remission to all 11 convicts on 10 August 2022. They walked out of Godhra jail on 15 August 2022 — Independence Day — to public outrage across India.
The Challenge — Writ Petitions Filed 2022
Within weeks, multiple writ petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the remission. The petitioners included Bilkis Bano herself, the National Federation of Indian Women, various civil society activists, and political figures. The central arguments were that Gujarat lacked jurisdiction to grant remission, the 1992 Policy was inapplicable, the remission was granted mechanically without individual consideration, and the convicts’ behaviour in prison and the gravity of their offences were not properly assessed.
The January 2024 Judgment — Four Key Legal Holdings
A Division Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter over 11 days of hearings. Justice Nagarathna authored the 251-page judgment. The judgment addressed four distinct legal questions — each of which has independent exam significance.
Holding 1 — “Appropriate Government” Under Section 432(7)(b) CrPC Was Maharashtra, Not Gujarat
This is the most important legal question in the case for judiciary exam purposes. Section 432(7)(b) of the CrPC defines “appropriate government” as the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the order is passed. The trial and conviction of all 11 accused happened in Mumbai, Maharashtra — at the Special CBI Court there. The sentencing order came from that court.
| Section 432(7) CrPC — “Appropriate Government” — The Core Legal Point: Section 432(7)(b) CrPC: “appropriate government” means the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed. This definition means: the state where the convicting and sentencing court sits = appropriate government for remission. In Bilkis Bano’s case: Trial court: Special CBI Court, Mumbai, Maharashtra Sentence passed by: Mumbai court Therefore: Appropriate government = Maharashtra, NOT Gujarat The Gujarat government’s argument: The crime was committed in Gujarat, so Gujarat is the appropriate government. Court’s rejection: The fact that the crime occurred in Gujarat is irrelevant for Section 432(7)(b). The trial was transferred to Maharashtra. After transfer, the convicting state is Maharashtra. The remission jurisdiction follows the sentencing jurisdiction — not the place of crime. Binding precedent applied: V. Sriharan v. Union of India (Constitution Bench) — “appropriate government for the purpose of Sections 432, 433, and 433A means the Government of the State where the convicts were convicted and sentenced.” |
Holding 2 — The May 2022 Supreme Court Order Was Per Incuriam
The May 2022 Supreme Court order that directed Gujarat to consider Radheshyam’s remission application was declared per incuriam by the January 2024 bench.
Per incuriam literally means “through lack of care” in Latin. In judicial usage, a judgment is per incuriam when it was decided without considering a binding authority — a statute or a binding precedent — that would have required a different decision. A per incuriam decision has no binding precedential value and can be declared a nullity.
| Per Incuriam — What It Means and Why It Applied Here: Definition: A judgment is per incuriam when it fails to consider or apply a binding authority — whether a statute or a superior court precedent — that would have changed the outcome. Effect: A per incuriam order has no binding precedential force. A court of coordinate or subordinate jurisdiction is not bound to follow it. In Bilkis Bano: The May 2022 SC order treated Gujarat as the appropriate government for remission. But the Constitution Bench judgment in V. Sriharan v. Union of India had already authoritatively held that “appropriate government” for remission is the state where the convicts were convicted and sentenced. This is Section 432(7)(b) CrPC directly. The May 2022 order did not consider V. Sriharan at all. Therefore: the order was per incuriam — it ignored a binding Constitution Bench. Result: The Court declared the May 2022 order a “nullity and non est in the eyes of law.” Exam angle: Per incuriam is a direct Mains short note topic. What makes a judgment per incuriam? What is its effect? Is the court below bound by it? The Bilkis Bano case is the freshest Supreme Court example. |
Holding 3 — Fraud on Court and Suppression of Material Facts
The third holding is separate from per incuriam and independently significant. The bench held that Radheshyam obtained the May 2022 Supreme Court order by suppression of material facts and misrepresentation — what courts call fraud on court.
What did Radheshyam suppress? He did not tell the Supreme Court that: (a) the Gujarat High Court had already in 2020 held that Maharashtra was the appropriate government and rejected his application, (b) he had been given liberty to approach the Bombay High Court, and (c) the Special Judge, Mumbai had in 2021 opined that Maharashtra’s remission policy applied. He presented only the Gujarat High Court’s 2019 order — without disclosing the 2020 order rejecting his application.
The Supreme Court held that an order obtained by playing fraud upon the court — by suppression of material facts and misrepresentation — is not merely voidable but can be declared a nullity. The principle is well-established: fraud vitiates everything. A court order obtained by fraud can be set aside even if it comes from the highest court, because the order was not made with full and correct information.
Holding 4 — Gujarat Acted in Tandem with Convicts, Abusing Discretion
The bench also held that the Gujarat government did not exercise its discretion independently when granting remission to the remaining 10 convicts (who had not approached any court themselves). It held that the Gujarat government acted “in tandem and was complicit” with the convicts — a damning finding of abuse of executive discretion.
The bench specifically noted that only one convict (Radheshyam) had approached the Supreme Court in 2022. The May 2022 order was only in his case. Yet the Gujarat government extended remission to all 11. For the other 10, there was neither a court direction nor an individual application duly processed. The mass remission without individual consideration was held to be both legally wrong and an abuse of executive power.
Legal Principles Established — What the Case Teaches
| Legal Principle | What the Case Decided | Why It Matters for Exam |
| “Appropriate government” under Section 432 CrPC | The appropriate government for remission is the government of the state where the convicts were convicted and sentenced — not where the crime was committed and not where the convicts are currently imprisoned. | Direct Mains short note. Jurisdiction for remission follows conviction — not crime location, not prison location. |
| Per incuriam doctrine | A Supreme Court order that fails to apply a binding Constitution Bench precedent is per incuriam and has no binding precedential force. It can be declared a nullity. | High-frequency Mains topic. What is per incuriam? What is its effect? Can a coordinate bench declare a previous SC order per incuriam? Yes — if it ignored a Constitution Bench. |
| Fraud on court | An order obtained from a court by suppression of material facts and misrepresentation is a nullity — fraud vitiates everything, including court orders. | Direct connection to Maxim “Fraus omnia corrumpit” — fraud vitiates all. Can be tested as a short note on the consequences of fraud on court. |
| Individual consideration in remission | En-masse remission without individual consideration of each convict’s case is impermissible. The case, conduct, and role of each individual must be assessed separately. | Connects to Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980) — wholesale remission without individual assessment is impermissible. |
| Article 21 and victim’s right to justice | The victim’s right to see the sentence of her attackers served is a facet of the right to life and dignity under Article 21. Executive remission power cannot be exercised to effectively nullify that right without proper process. | Constitutional angle — Article 21 is not only about the accused’s rights. The victim has rights too under Article 21. |
| Transfer of trial and jurisdiction | When a trial is transferred by the Supreme Court to another state, the jurisdiction for remission also transfers to that state — the original state of crime does not retain remission jurisdiction. | Transfer of trial has downstream consequences beyond just the trial. Jurisdiction for all post-conviction processes follows the convicting court. |
The Remission Law in India — Section 432 and 433 CrPC Explained
The Bilkis Bano case cannot be fully understood without knowing how remission works under the CrPC and the BNSS that replaced it.
| Provision | What It Says | Key Point |
| Section 432 CrPC (Section 473 BNSS) | The appropriate government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of the sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment. | Remission is executive power — not judicial. The government (appropriate government) decides — not the court that sentenced. |
| Section 432(7)(b) CrPC | Defines “appropriate government” as the government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed. | The key provision in Bilkis Bano — “within which the offender is sentenced” = Maharashtra in this case. |
| Section 433 CrPC (Section 474 BNSS) | The appropriate government may commute a sentence — e.g., life imprisonment to a shorter term of imprisonment. | Commutation reduces the nature or quantum of punishment. Distinct from remission which suspends or forgives. |
| Section 433A CrPC (Section 474 BNSS) | Where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction for an offence for which death is one of the punishments, or where a death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment, such person shall not be released from prison unless they have served at least 14 years. | A floor on life imprisonment — cannot be released under 14 years. Remission must be calculated after this floor. |
| Section 435 CrPC (Section 476 BNSS) | In certain cases where the offence was investigated by the CBI or a Central agency, the state government must seek the concurrence of the Central Government before exercising its remission power. | In CBI cases (as Bilkis Bano was), state government needs Central Government concurrence for remission — this was another procedural flaw in the Gujarat order. |
Bilkis Bano Case and BNSS 2023 — The Transition
The Bilkis Bano case was decided under CrPC 1973. From 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 replaced the CrPC. The remission provisions have corresponding sections in BNSS. For any remission matter arising after 1 July 2024, the BNSS sections apply — but the legal principles established in Bilkis Bano regarding appropriate government, individual consideration, and fraud on court continue to apply with full force under BNSS.
| CrPC Section | Subject | BNSS Equivalent |
| Section 432 | Suspension or remission of sentences | Section 473 BNSS |
| Section 432(7)(b) — Appropriate Government | State where convicted and sentenced | Section 473(7)(b) BNSS — same definition retained |
| Section 433 | Commutation of sentence | Section 474 BNSS |
| Section 433A — 14-year minimum | Life imprisonment floor | Section 474 BNSS — same provision retained |
| Section 435 | Concurrence of Central Government in CBI cases | Section 476 BNSS — same requirement retained |
Constitutional Dimensions — Article 21 and Victim’s Rights
The Bilkis Bano judgment explicitly addressed the constitutional dimension of remission. The bench held that Article 21 — the right to life and personal liberty — protects not only the accused’s right to fair procedure but also the victim’s right to see justice served. When the state exercises its remission power, it cannot do so in a manner that effectively nullifies the victim’s right to see the punishment of her attackers enforced.
Justice Nagarathna quoted from the judgment itself: that the courts had to be mindful of the spelling of the word “justice” and the content of the concept. This was a pointed comment on a state government that had released men convicted of gangrape and mass murder on Independence Day without following the basic requirements of jurisdiction, individual consideration, or procedural fairness.
The case also connects to Article 14 — equal protection — in the sense that the remission was granted to all 11 convicts en masse without individual examination, treating the most serious crimes as if they were routine offences amenable to blanket administrative release.
Bilkis Bano Case — Judiciary Mains Answer Format
A Mains problem question may present facts similar to the Bilkis Bano situation — a trial transferred from State A to State B, conviction in State B, then State A granting remission. Or it may directly ask: “Explain the legal principles in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024).”
| Step | What to Write |
| Step 1 — Introduction | State the full case name, citation (2024 INSC 24), date (8 January 2024), and bench (Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan). One sentence on what the case decided at the highest level. |
| Step 2 — Facts | Brief factual summary: 2002 Gujarat riots, gangrape and murder, CBI investigation, trial transferred to Mumbai, conviction in 2008, remission granted by Gujarat in August 2022, challenged in Supreme Court. |
| Step 3 — Legal Issue 1 (Appropriate Government) | Section 432(7)(b) CrPC — definition of appropriate government. Apply V. Sriharan precedent. Trial in Maharashtra = Maharashtra is appropriate government = Gujarat had no jurisdiction. |
| Step 4 — Legal Issue 2 (Per Incuriam) | Explain per incuriam doctrine. May 2022 order ignored V. Sriharan (Constitution Bench) = per incuriam. Effect: declared a nullity. |
| Step 5 — Legal Issue 3 (Fraud on Court) | Radheshyam suppressed Gujarat HC 2020 order, Special Judge Mumbai 2021 opinion. Order obtained by fraud = nullity. Fraud vitiates everything. |
| Step 6 — Legal Issue 4 (Individual Consideration) | Mass remission without individual assessment is impermissible — Maru Ram v. Union of India principle. Each convict’s case must be individually examined. |
| Step 7 — Constitutional Angle | Article 21 protects victim’s right to justice. Executive remission power must be exercised within jurisdictional limits and with procedural fairness. |
| Step 8 — Decision | All 11 directed to surrender within two weeks. Gujarat’s remission order declared a nullity. Section 435 CrPC concurrence of Centre not obtained — additional procedural flaw. |
Frequently Asked Questions — Bilkis Bano Case
What is the Bilkis Bano case?
The Bilkis Bano case — formally Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024 INSC 24) — is a landmark Supreme Court judgment decided on 8 January 2024 by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan. It quashed the Gujarat government’s order of 10 August 2022 that had granted premature release to 11 men convicted of the gangrape of Bilkis Yakub Rasool and the murder of seven of her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The Supreme Court held the Gujarat government’s remission order to be without jurisdiction, the May 2022 SC order that directed it to be per incuriam and obtained by fraud, and directed all 11 convicts to surrender to prison within two weeks.
Why was the Bilkis Bano remission quashed?
The remission was quashed on three independent grounds. First, Gujarat was not the “appropriate government” under Section 432(7)(b) CrPC — the trial and conviction took place in Mumbai, Maharashtra, making Maharashtra the appropriate government. Second, the May 2022 Supreme Court order that directed Gujarat to consider remission was per incuriam — it ignored the binding Constitution Bench judgment in V. Sriharan v. Union of India and was therefore a nullity. Third, the May 2022 order had been obtained by the convict Radheshyam through suppression of material facts and misrepresentation — fraud on court — which further rendered it void.
What is the meaning of per incuriam in the Bilkis Bano context?
Per incuriam means “through lack of care” — a judgment is per incuriam when it was decided without considering a binding statute or precedent that would have required a different decision. In the Bilkis Bano case, the May 2022 Supreme Court order treated Gujarat as the appropriate government for remission without considering the Constitution Bench judgment in V. Sriharan v. Union of India, which had definitively held that appropriate government means the state where the offender was convicted and sentenced. Because the May 2022 order ignored this binding precedent, it was per incuriam — a nullity with no binding force.
What is Section 432(7)(b) CrPC and how does it apply to the Bilkis Bano case?
Section 432(7)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 defines “appropriate government” for the purpose of remission as the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed. In the Bilkis Bano case, the 11 convicts were sentenced by the Special CBI Court in Mumbai, Maharashtra. Therefore, under Section 432(7)(b), Maharashtra was the appropriate government to consider their remission applications — not Gujarat. Gujarat had no jurisdiction to grant remission. The equivalent provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS) is Section 473(7)(b), which retains the same definition.
What is fraud on court as used in the Bilkis Bano case?
Fraud on court occurs when a party obtains a court order by suppressing material facts or misrepresenting the true position before the court. In the Bilkis Bano case, the convict Radheshyam obtained the May 2022 Supreme Court order by not disclosing that the Gujarat High Court had already in 2020 rejected his remission application, that he had been given liberty to approach the Bombay High Court, and that the Special Judge Mumbai had in 2021 recommended that Maharashtra’s remission policy was applicable. The Supreme Court held that an order obtained by fraud on court is a nullity — the well-established legal principle being that fraud vitiates everything.
Related Articles — Criminal Law and Judiciary Exam Preparation
→ BNSS vs CrPC: Complete Section-Wise Comparison for Judiciary Exam — Section 473 BNSS (remission) replaces Section 432 CrPC — applicable to post-July 2024 remission applications
→ Difference Between IPC and BNS — Section-Wise Comparison — Complete IPC to BNS mapping — criminal law transition directly relevant to Bilkis Bano case timeline
→ BNS Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: Sections, IPC Comparison and Exam Notes — New criminal codes — the codes applicable after 1 July 2024 for all fresh criminal matters
→ RJS Online Coaching — Live Classes and Verified Results — Criminal law and constitutional law preparation for RJS Prelims and Mains
→ Best Gujarat Judiciary Coaching — GJS Results — Remission law and criminal procedure are core to GJS Mains criminal law paper
→ Best UP PCS J Coaching Online — UP Judiciary Exam 2026 — Bilkis Bano case is high-probability in UP PCS J Mains criminal law essay questions
All the best — from Jyoti Judiciary Coaching
Written by Advocate Jyoti Saxena — LLB, LLM, CS, Bar Council of Rajasthan, practising at Jaipur Family Court, Jaipur District Court, and the Rajasthan High Court. The legal principles in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024 INSC 24) — appropriate government under CrPC Section 432, per incuriam doctrine, and fraud on court — are directly applied in criminal courts across India. All case citations are verified from the Supreme Court’s official neutral citation records. Contact: +91 99290 96546 | jyotijudiciary.com
All case citations verified from Supreme Court records at main.sci.gov.in and Indian Kanoon. Section 432 CrPC references apply to events before 1 July 2024. For post-July 2024 matters, Section 473 BNSS 2023 applies.
