The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred to May 9 the hearing on a batch of pleas challenging the remission granted last year to all the 11 convicts in the case of the gang rape of Bilkis Bano and the murder of her family members during the 2002 post-Godhra riots.

A bench of Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna was told by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, who appeared in the court on behalf of the Centre and the Gujarat government, that they are not claiming any privilege and not filing any plea for a review of the court's March 27 order, asking for the production of the original records with regard to the remission granted to the convicts.

Counsel appearing for the convicts raised objections on not being served the notice on Bano's plea, which made the top court observe, "It is obvious, rather more than obvious, that you all do not want the hearing to be conducted by this bench." 

"We are only fixing timelines, so that whichever court takes up the matter will not have to waste time on these procedural issues. I am retiring during the vacation on June 16. My last working day will be May 19. My sister (Justice Nagarathna) will be going to attend a conference in Singapore till May 25. If all of you agree, we can sit during the vacation and finish hearing the case," Justice Joseph said.

Some counsel appearing for the petitioners, including senior advocate Indira Jaising and Vrinda Grover, agreed that the bench may hear the matter during the summer vacation.

Mr Mehta, however, requested the court to list the matter before the vacation and not during the vacation.

"It is not that I will not be available for this case but all cases. Once we make an exception for one case, I will have to make an exception for all the cases," Mr Mehta said.

Advocate Shobha Gupta said the matter will take a very short time as only the question of law needs to be decided.

Justice Joseph told Gupta, "It is apparent that the counsel appearing for the convicts do not want this hearing to take place. Every time the matter will be called up, one person or the other will come and say that he needs time to file a reply. It is more than obvious." He said, "It is somewhat clear what is being attempted here. It is obvious, rather more than obvious, that you all do not want the hearing to be conducted by this bench. This is not fair to me. In our last hearing, we had made it absolutely clear that the matter will be listed for final disposal on the next date of hearing. Remember, all of you (the counsel for the convicts) are officers of the court. Do not forget your role. You may lose one case or win a case, but do not forget your duty towards the court." 

Senior advocate Siddharth and advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for the convicts, wondered what was the "tearing hurry" in hearing the case after the counsel for Bilkis Bano and others requested that the matter be taken up before the vacation.

"We have been released and are out for around one year. There should not be any tearing hurry," Malhotra said.

He added that he wishes to file certain preliminary objections to the writ petition filed by Ms Bano against the remission, saying the Supreme Court rules do not allow the filing of a writ petition after a review against the main judgment has been dismissed.

Some of the counsel appearing for the convicts said two of their clients were out of station but it was stated by the petitioners that they had refused to accept the notice.