Mercy Petition – Supreme Court has rejected the request to reduce Balwant Singh Rajoana’s death sentence, but has permitted the central government to determine when to consider the mercy petition if needed — however, directed that the competent authority, in due course of time, would again as and when it is deemed necessary, may deal with the Mercy Petition, and take a further decision.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

FULL BENCH

BALWANT SINGH — Appellant

Vs.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent

( Before : B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ. )

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 261of 2020

Decided on : 03-05-2023

Mercy Petition – Supreme Court has rejected the request to reduce Balwant Singh Rajoana’s death sentence, but has permitted the central government to determine when to consider the mercy petition if needed – It would not be within the domain of this Court to delve upon the decision of the competent authority to defer taking of any decision at present – It is within the domain of the executive to take a call on such sensitive issues – As such this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue any further directions – It is, however, directed that the competent authority, in due course of time, would again as and when it is deemed necessary, may deal with the Mercy Petition, and take a further decision.

• The Supreme Court has rejected a plea to reduce the death sentence of Balwant Singh Rajoana, but has allowed the central government to determine when to consider his mercy petition if necessary. The court has stated that it is not within its domain to delve into the decision of the competent authority to defer taking any decision at present. The decision on such sensitive issues is the responsibility of the executive, and the court does not deem it appropriate to issue any further directions. However, the competent authority is directed to deal with the Mercy Petition again, as and when necessary, and take a further decision.
• Balwant Singh Rajoana was convicted for his involvement in the assassination of former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh in 1995. He had filed a mercy petition with the President of India, which was subsequently rejected. Rajoana had then approached the Supreme Court seeking a reduction in his death sentence, but the court has rejected his plea.
• The decision of the Supreme Court has been met with mixed reactions. Some have criticized the court for not granting clemency to Rajoana, while others have lauded the decision to leave the matter to the central government. The case has been controversial, with some arguing that Rajoana should be pardoned due to his involvement in the assassination being motivated by political reasons.
• The issue of mercy petitions has been a contentious one in India, with many arguing that the process is slow and lacks transparency. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Rajoana case is likely to fuel further debate on the issue. The court’s directive to the competent authority to deal with the Mercy Petition again as and when necessary is seen as a positive step towards ensuring that the process is more transparent and expeditious in the future.
• Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Rajoana case highlights the complex and sensitive nature of issues related to mercy petitions and capital punishment. While the court has rejected Rajoana’s plea, it has also recognized the responsibility of the executive in making decisions on such matters. The case is likely to continue to be debated and discussed in the coming months, and its outcome will have significant implications for the future of capital punishment and mercy petitions in India.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Advocate, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Alekshendra Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mr. K M Natarj, A.S.G., Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Das, Advocate, Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Advocate, Mr. Divyansh H Rathi, Advocate, Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Advocate, Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Vinayak Sahrma, Advocate, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Advocate, Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., Advocate, Mr. Anuj s. Udupa, Advocate, Mr. Chithransh Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Pal, Advocate, Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Advocate, Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Advocate, Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Cases Referred

• Harbans Singh v. State of U.P., (1982) 2 SCC 101
• Kusumbala Tarun Das v. Union of India, (2011) SCC Online Gau 370
• Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi) and anr., (2014) 7 SCC 264
• Shatrughan Chauhan and anr. v Union of India & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 1
• V. Sriharan alias Murugan v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 4 SCC 242

JUDGMENT

Vikram Nath, J. – The present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:

2. Pleadings have been exchanged.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are stated hereunder:

4.1. On 31.8.1995, in a bomb blast the then Chief Minister of Punjab Shri Beant Singh, along with 16 others, lost their lives and a dozen others were injured. The present petitioner, along with 8 others, who had hatched a conspiracy and had executed the said bomb blast, were put to trial. It would be relevant to mention that the present petitioner was arrested with respect to the said incident on 27.01.1996. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 27.07.2007 convicted the petitioner along with coaccused Jagtar Singh Hawara, Gurmeet Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Shamsher Singh and Nasib Singh. The petitioner along with co-accused Jagtar Singh Hawara have been convicted for offences under Sections 120-B, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[1] and u/s.3(b), 4(b) and 5(b) r/w 6 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and awarded death sentence. In death reference, the High Court vide judgment dated 10.12.2010 confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. However, while confirming the conviction of the co-accused Jagtar Singh, it commuted the death sentence into life imprisonment. Other co-accused preferred appeal before this Court.

However, the present petitioner did not file any appeal after the judgment of the High Court. According to the petitioner, a Mercy Petition was preferred on 25.03.2012. However, according to the respondentUnion of India, till date the petitioner has not preferred any Mercy Petition. It was Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee[2] which preferred the aforesaid Mercy Petition on behalf of the petitioner.

5. The grievance of the petitioner, as apparent from the petition is that, as no decision has been taken on his Mercy Petition for more than 10 years, he should be granted the commutation of his death sentence into imprisonment for life.

6. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a letter dated 27.09.2019 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab communicating that 8 Sikh persons be given special remission under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and released from prison and a further proposal for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment of one prisoner (petitioner) is to be processed under Article 72 of the Constitution of India. All concerned departments were required to take appropriate action in that regard. Along with the said letter is attached the list of 9 Sikh prisoners, 8 with respect to whom remission was given under Article 161 of the Constitution and one (petitioner) whose case was to be considered for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment under Article 72 of the Constitution. It would be appropriate to reproduce the letter dated 27.09.2019 minus the annexure:

Major Dhyan Cand National Stadium,

Women Safety Division, 2nd Floor,

India Gate, New Delhi – 110 002

September 27, 2019

PA/PSH 229010

Dated 11/10/19

Yours sincerely,

Sd/-(Arun Sobti)

Deputy Secretary (PR & ATC),

Phone:075297

Email: dspr.ate@mha.gov.rn

7. The eight prisoners who were granted remission as per the annexure are:

The only prisoner whose commutation of death sentence was to be processed under Article 72 of the Constitution of India was the petitioner.

8. Learned senior counsel has thereafter drawn our attention to the correspondence between different organs of the state with respect to commutation of death sentence of the petitioner. However, it is stated that till date no decision has been taken. It is under these circumstances that Shri Rohtagi, learned senior counsel prayed that as the State and the Union of India have not been able to decide the Mercy Petition which is pending for more than 10 years, this Court itself may grant that commutation. Shri Rohtagi placed reliance upon the following three judgments of this Court in support of his submissions:

9. On the other hand Shri K.M.Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the petitioner having expressed in specific terms that he has no faith in the judiciary of this country and that he did not regret at all being part of the crime and further has used contemptuous terms before the High Court which have been duly recorded, he does not deserve any mercy in view of his conduct. It is further submitted that till date the petitioner himself has not submitted any Mercy Petition. The Mercy Petition dated 25.03.2012 attached with the petition is by the SGPC under Article 72 of the Constitution of India.

The communication dated 27.09.2019 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, referred to above, is only a request to the state government to send a proposal for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment under Article 72 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that once the petitioner has not filed any Mercy Petition himself, there is no question of granting any relief as claimed. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Guwahati High Court in the case of Kusumbala Tarun Das v. Union of India, (2011) SCC Online Gau 370. Another objection taken by learned ASG is to the effect that Criminal Appeals filed by the co-accused are still pending before this Court, as such consideration of any Mercy Petition would arise only after disposal of those appeals. Details of three Criminal Appeals filed by two co-accused Lakhwinder Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara and also one Criminal Appeal filed by the CBI against the commutation of the sentence of Jagtar Singh Hawara, are as follows:

10. According to learned ASG, the decision in these appeals pending before this Court would be a relevant material and while considering the Mercy Petition the same could have a bearing. As such it would be appropriate to await the decision of the pending appeals. In support of his submission, reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Harbans Singh v. State of U.P., (1982) 2 SCC 101

11. Shri Natraj, learned ASG further made a submission that there is no delay in consideration of the Mercy Petition. According to Shri Natraj, it is only after 27.09.2019 that the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, required the state government to send the proposal for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment under Article 72 of the Constitution. It is thereafter that the process has started. Further it is submitted that during the pendency of the present proceedings, two orders were passed by this Court on 4.12.2020 issuing certain directions and again on 2.5.2022 issuing further directions. Both the orders are reproduced below:

12. It is was next submitted that under the above directions, proceedings were taken up for consideration ignoring the aspect of pending appeals. In the meantime, multiple representations were also received and the same were under consideration for due analysis.

13. It was next submitted by the learned ASG that considering the prevailing situation, a decision has been taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs that it would be appropriate to defer taking any decision on the Mercy Petition as it could have serious potential of compromising the security of the nation or creating a law and order situation.

14. It was further submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the decision already taken as communicated to this Court vide affidavit dated 29.09.2022.

15. On the direction of the Court, Shri Natraj produced the relevant record relating to the Ministry of Home Affairs resulting into the decision taken for deferring the disposal of the Mercy Petition as communicated vide affidavit dated 29.09.2022. The said file was perused by the Court.

16. Although Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had requested for perusal of the file of the Ministry of Home Affairs but the same was seriously objected to by Shri Natraj, learned ASG. This Court also did not deem it necessary that the said file dealing with a sensitive issue be given access to the petitioner.

17. From the above facts and circumstances, it is also evident that the argument regarding pendency of the Mercy Petition and there being a delay of more than 10 years cannot be sustained. Firstly, the petitioner himself never submitted any Mercy Petition. The alleged Mercy Petition of year 2012 was filed by SGPC. Further, after the communication of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 27.09.2019, the proposal for considering the commutation of the death sentence of the petitioner was started and a decision was taken to keep the same pending till disposal of the pending appeals before this Court, filed by the co-accused as well as by CBI, as according to the competent authority, it would have a bearing and it could be relevant for taking final decision on the said proposal of commutation. Further, it was after the directions issued by this Court on 04.12.2020 and 02.05.2022 that the matter was again considered by the competent authority and it was decided to defer the question of commutation in view of the reasons given in the affidavit filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Thus, it cannot be alleged that there has been an inordinate delay in disposal of the Mercy Petition.

18. We may also record here that the three decisions relied upon by Shri Rohtagi in support of his submission regarding inordinate delay in disposal of the Mercy Petition and resultantly commutation in such cases having been granted by this Court, do not help the petitioner in view of the facts and situation being different in those three cases and in the present case.

19. Without going into any further issues as argued by counsel for the parties, we find that there are directions by this Court vide orders dated 4.12.2020 and 2.5.2022 to dispose of the Mercy Petition of the petitioner. We also find that the Ministry of Home Affairs, upon material consideration of various reports from its different branches, has come to the conclusion that the consideration may be deferred as it could have an impact of compromising the security of the nation or creating law and order situation. It would not be within the domain of this Court to delve upon the decision of the competent authority to defer taking of any decision at present. It is within the domain of the executive to take a call on such sensitive issues. As such this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue any further directions.

20. The stand of the Ministry of Home Affairs to defer the decision on the Mercy Petition of the petitioner is also a decision for the reasons given thereunder. It actually amounts to a decision declining to grant the same for the present.

21. It is, however, directed that the competent authority, in due course of time, would again as and when it is deemed necessary, may deal with the Mercy Petition, and take a further decision.

22. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly with the aforesaid observations.

23. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.