Justice Bela M. Trivedi, a judge from Gujarat, on Tuesday recused from hearing a writ petition filed by Bilkis Bano challenging the premature release of the 11 persons convicted of gang-raping her and murdering seven of her family members during the 2002 riots in the state.

As soon as the matter came up for hearing, Justice Trivedi informed the presiding judge, Justice Ajay Rastogi, and counsel Shobha Gupta that she was withdrawing from the case. Justice Trivedi did not give any reason for her decision.

The bench then referred the matter to Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud for listing before an appropriate bench. Legally, a judge is not required to cite reason for recusal.

Normally, judges recuse from matters in which they had some stake earlier as a counsel for either of the parties, or had personal acquaintance or other rapport with those involved. In such cases, judges withdraw from hearing a case to avoid allegations of conflict of interest.

Bilkis had, in addition to the writ petition, filed a plea seeking a review of the apex court’s May 13 order by which it had asked the Gujarat government to consider the plea for remission of the 11 life convicts.

The review petition was listed before the bench of Justices Rastogi and Vikram Nath at 1.30pm on Tuesday, in chambers. However, the outcome is not known as an official order has not yet been uploaded.

A review petition has to be heard by the same bench which had passed the original order.

In Bilkis’s case, the bench of Justices Rastogi and Nath had passed the impugned order of May 13, directing the Gujarat government to consider the plea for premature release of one of the convicts, Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah alias Lala Vakil.

Radheshyam had moved the apex court after Gujarat High Court had ruled that only the Maharashtra government had the power to consider release of the convicts since the trial was conducted in that state.

Review petition

The review petition by Bilkis has complained that Radheyshyam had “not come with clean hands” to the court as he had concealed several incriminating facts which Bilkis would now place before the court.

The review petition has argued that the appropriate government to decide the premature release of the convicts was the Maharashtra dispensation.

Writ petition

Bilkis’s writ petition has sought the enforcement of her fundamental right, contending that the premature release ought to be quashed as she and her family apprehended grave threat to their personal safety and security.

“The en masse premature release of the convicts... has shaken conscience of the society.... This Hon’ble Court has already declared that en masse remissions are not permissible and that remission cannot be sought or granted as a matter of right of the convict without examining the case of each convict individually based on their peculiar facts and role played by them in the crime,” the petition said.