<https://youtu.be/L2tVdPiHJVQ>
An excellent and very informed/informative discussion. The most important point made is that *the Supreme Court in its May 22 judgement had erred* in forwarding the application for remission to the government of Gujarat instead of the government of Maharashtra where the trial had been conducted - in two stages, culminating in conviction. This is clearly a breach of a judgement given by a constitution (i.e. a five-judge, or even larger) bench most categorically clarifying the issue - upholding the earlier judgements of the Supreme Court and endorsing the precedences. The other two very significant points made are that seeking the views of (i) the judge presiding over the trial court and (ii) also that of the prosecuting agency is mandatory. While it's not known whether these two requirements have been met, the concerned judge has opted to go public criticising the premature release (ref.: < https://www.barandbench.com/news/bilkis-bano-case-gujarat-government-has-set-a-bad-precedent-by-granting-remission-to-convicts-justice-ud-salvi >). The moral (and political) dimensions have not been directly dealt with. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/greenyouth/CACEsOZg0_vL5sqqLOkG91n7ZPGdyGBt2T49LOM0fewzKGXNv9A%40mail.gmail.com.
