“The war against women started in the minds” (Nigam, 2023, p.1)

Said Adv. Shalu Nigam, in her paper titled ‘Combating Everyday Gender Stereotypes in the Courtrooms’ Her paper, analyses the ‘Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes’ published by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in 2023. But, in the largest democracy of the world, why does the Supreme Court have to publish such a handbook? Why do the legal proceedings taking place in the courtrooms and the people in the positions of power within them require having such a guide in front of them? Why do gender, caste, and religion play significant roles in Indian courtrooms, influencing whether the victims get justice or not?

In the shadow of this question, I will proceed to write this piece, analysing the ‘Bilkis Yakub Rasool’ or the ‘Bilkis Bano’ case, which serves as a microcosm of the critical dynamics like how culture shapes credibility in Indian courtrooms dealing with gender based cases, from traditional gender roles to media influence.

In India, cultural norms, power dynamics, and societal expectations play major roles in how someone’s statement is perceived and how truth is displayed to the masses. Being a woman makes it harder. Even though courtrooms are supposed to be neutral, in the majority of cases, there is an interplay between societal norms and customs and legal processes, influencing the credibility of violence against women in the country.

Statement credibility of the victim in the Indian legal system (which is arguably pretty patriarchal in nature) usually depends on relevant evidence as well as proof of sustained physical injuries during the incident (if any), whether the victim reported the crime promptly, and whether it can be proved that the victim provided ‘consent’ to the crime. According to Ravinder Barn and Ved Kumari, there are several unnecessary factors that the patriarchal Indian society takes into consideration while determining whether the victim’s testimony is credible, which they termed as ‘rape myths’. These include the victim’s clothing during the time of the incident, where the crime took place, at what time of the day, the victim’s previous sexual history, etc. (Barn & Kumari, 2019, p.2)  Sometimes it extends to the victim’s social, economic and religious backgrounds, as seen in the case of Ms. Bilkis Yakub Rasool.

While a complaint of a hate crime like rape is being filed, where victim testimonies are of extreme importance, the police officers filing the complaint are supposed to be neutral, which, in the majority of cases, they are. But in the case of Ms. Bilkis Bano, it was not like that. Head Constable of the Limkheda Police Station, Somabhai Gori, failed to do so; he suppressed material facts and wrote a ‘distorted and truncated version’ of her complaint, which forced Bilkis and her remaining family to leave their home and permanent possessions to take shelter at a refugee camp. In the same year (2002), the Limkheda judicial magistrate closed the case, following a ‘Summary A’ report, citing inconsistencies in the FIR (Devi, 2025, p.1). Thus it can be seen, that in the Indian context, where caste, religion and the sense of ‘justice’ is deeply entwined with gender, the factors on which statement credibility depends on, and an ‘ideal victim’ narrative is constructed - like apparent signs of physical resistance, emotional distress, immediate reporting if not met with, as they might not align with the survivor’s lived reality, can have immense effect on the victim’s credibility, where they can be severely undermined. (Barn & Kumari, 2019, p.3)

In this case, Bilkis’s testimonial credibility was incredibly undermined, parts of her statement were omitted, and she even received death threats, which is not surprising in this context. As Professor Heba Ahmed quoted Miranda Fricker in her article - ‘Testimonial injustice occurs when prejudice causes a hearer to give a deflated level of credibility to a speaker’s word’ (Ahmed, 2019)

To actually understand the religious, political, social, and gender bias against the victim in this case, we must trace back to 2002:-

On 27th February, 2002, the Sabarmati Express was carrying Hindu karsevaks (Hindu religious volunteers) from Ayodhya to Godhra, Gujarat. A mob stopped the train and set coach S6 of the train on fire, killing 51 Hindu devotees. (Although there isn't a very clear picture of who exactly set it on fire ) - (Guruswamy, 2017)

This incident infuriated the Hindu population of Gujarat and sparked riots the following day, as they targeted Muslims, killing them, and destroying their possessions and properties.

Bilkis Bano who was 5 months pregnant at that time, with a 3 year old daughter, tried fleeing with her family for 2-3 days, but on March 3rd 2002, a group of 20-30 people attacked the family with sickles, swords and stones, killing 7 of her family members, among which was also her 3 year old daughter.

The local police, as I mentioned above, rejected and altered her complaints, leading her to turn to the National Human Rights Commission in 2003, finally filing an appeal to the Hon. Supreme Court.

To determine the identity and cause of death of the victims, the Supreme Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the case. Professor T. D. Dogra led a team of experts from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) in Delhi and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to exhume the mass graves. The crew was able to discover and exhume the victims' remains. (Bilkis Bano Case - Wikipedia, n.d.)

The case was then transferred to Mumbai from Gujarat as Ms Bano expressed her concerns and doubts over the Gujarat court’s impartiality, as well as her safety. By suggesting that an unbiased decision would not have been feasible in the originating jurisdiction, this transfer subtly acknowledged the possible biases in the legal system.

13 individuals were convicted on charges of rape, murder, and conspiracy, 11 of them were given life sentences.

The CBI pushed for the death penalty, and the convicts challenged the court’s decision, but the High Court upheld the previous life sentence. In 2019, the Supreme Court ordered the Gujarat Government to pay Ms. Bano INR 50 Lakh as compensation. (Referring to Hindustan Times for the timeline)

In 2022, the case took a dark turn. Radheshyam Bhagwan Das Shah, one of the convicts of the case, approached the Hon. Supreme Court seeking a remission from his life sentence, referring to the 1992 Gujarat State Remission Policy. The Supreme Court ruled that the Gujarat Government was fit to grant the remission, and on 15th August 2022, all the 11 convicts were released.

This release ignited public outrage, and Bilkis Bano herself challenged this decision, stating that their premature release had "shaken the conscience of society" (SC Sends Bilkis Bano's Convicts to Jail, Again: All You Need to Know About the 2002 Gujarat Riots Case, 2024)

In 2024, however, the Supreme Court quashed the remission order and stated that the Gujarat High Court lacked jurisdiction to order the remission.

Now that we have a fairly clear timeline of events regarding the case, we can return to the question: What exactly influenced the decisions of the central and state courts and the judicial bodies involved?

"Another stinging slap landed in Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi’s face today as the Supreme Court transferred the trial in the Bilkis Bano gangrape to a special court in Mumbai.”

Wrote The Telegraph, on 7th August 2004, when following a petition filed by Ms. Bano, the apex court ordered her case to be shifted from Gujarat to Mumbai. In the petition, Bilkis stated that the Gujarat police were ‘hand in glove with the accused’ and the political condition of the state was too debased to ensure a free and fair trial. Even though the Supreme Court stated that “This order should not be seen as a reflection on the competence of courts in Gujarat.” (“Second Riot Case Shift,” 2004)   A question remains. Why will the political condition of a state influence the state’s courtrooms? People are not oblivious. The Hon. Supreme Court’s statement does not align with what was said in the petition filed by Bano, nor with her reasoning why the case should be shifted, considering that the petition led the apex court to the very decision. We have to acknowledge that this decision, if not explicitly, then implicitly acknowledged the possible biases in the legal system of the state. Bilkis’ gender and religious background should also be taken into fair consideration.

Another major issue to be discussed in light of the apex court’s decision to shift the case from Gujarat to Mumbai is how the Supreme Court later ruled that the Gujarat Government had the authority to accept the remission request of Radheshyam Bhagwan Das Shah and eventually release the 11 convicts in 2022.

This was addressed by Justice Nagarathna, who was one of the judges of the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court dealing with the proceedings of Bilkis’ 2024 petition against the release of the convicts. Justice Nagarathna stated that Radheshyam, the convict behind the May 2022 petition, suppressed critical facts when he approached the Supreme Court. The bench of two judges immediately quashed the remission orders of all the other convicts, as the judgment held that the proceedings for remission started only through Radheshyam. This means that there was no direction to consider the remission of any other convicts.’ (Vora, 2024)

‘Remission’ is a complicated aspect of the Indian legal system. It is a state-controlled executive procedure, not a judicial one. The convicts in Bilkis’ case were granted remission under the 1992 Gujarat Remission Policy, which only looks at whether the convicts have served at least 15 years in prison, along with input on good behaviour from the Inspector General of Prisons, District Police Officer, District Magistrate, jail chairman, and advisory committee. The newer 2014 Gujarat Remission policy states that convicts in cases investigated by the CBI, and those convicted of murder with rape and gang rape, are not categorically eligible to seek remission. But unfortunately, the 2014 policy was inapplicable in Bilkis’ case as the legal doctrine requires that the remission policy in force at the time of conviction be applied, as established by the Supreme Court in its precedent-setting judgment in State of Haryana vs. Jagdish. Had the 2014 policy been applied, the convicts would never have been granted remission. (1992 Gujarat Remission Policy, 1992), (2014 Gujarat Remission Policy, 2014)

The application of the 1992 Remission Policy was a judicial obligation, but while granting the remission, there have been several reports of the Gujarat Government going against the Mumbai trial court’s opinion, which originally sentenced the convicts to life. The trial court’s reports and opinions went completely against the jail advisory committee and the government decided to follow the advisory committee’s reports as according to the state’s then additional chief secretary “The jail advisory board looks into their [convicts] activities in jail, behaviour with fellow inmates, the psychological condition, health, all those things. The trial judge will, of course, give an opinion on what he must have seen during court proceedings.”

5 among the 10 members of the advisory committee were BJP (current ruling party) officeholders. (Saikia & Iyer, 2022)   The released 11 convicts were greeted with garlands and sweets, while the BJP MLA of Godhra stated that "We asked the jailer and learnt that their behaviour was good in the prison...also (some of the convicts) are Brahmins. They have good 'sanskaar' (values)," reported ‘The Hindu’ in 2022. (“Some Convicts in Bilkis Bano Case Are 'Brahmins With Good Sanskaar', Says Gujarat BJP MLA,” 2022)

This goes on to show how little regard the ruling party has for human lives and how dangerous and powerful they can be that they can influence courtrooms and judicial processes. At the end of the day, Bilkis was a woman who had been severely wronged. She relentlessly fought for justice regardless of the challenges she faced. Her gender, religion, and social background should never have influenced the legal proceedings of her case. But here we are, standing in a world where gender, caste, religion, and such trivial things implicitly decide whether one will receive justice or not. Even though Bilkis got justice, she said her faith in the legal system has been restored; she did not deserve to go through what she went through, just for being part of a minority, and most importantly, a woman.