SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Balwant Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 261 of 2020
Decided On : 02-05-2022
ORDER - Mercy Petition - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 307, 120-B), Explosive Substances Act (Sections 3, 4) - The court addressed the alleged inaction of the concerned authorities in not commuting the death sentence of the petitioner. The court directed the concerned authorities to consider the mercy petition without being influenced by the pending appeal of the co-accused and to make a decision within two months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, convicted for offenses under the Indian Penal Code and Explosive Substances Act, filed a writ petition alleging inaction by the authorities in not commuting his death sentence despite a mercy petition. The petitioner had not preferred any appeal before the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities were obligated to consider the mercy petition despite the pending appeal of the co-accused. The court directed the concerned authorities to make a decision on the mercy petition within two months, without being influenced by the pending appeal of the co-accused.
Issues: Alleged inaction of the authorities in not commuting the death sentence, consideration of the mercy petition despite the pending appeal of the co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the authorities were obligated to consider the mercy petition and directed them to make a decision within a specified timeframe, irrespective of the pending appeal of the co-accused.
Final Decision: The court directed the concerned authorities to consider the mercy petition without being influenced by the pending appeal of the co-accused and to make a decision within two months. The matter was listed for further consideration on a specified date.
ORDER
1. The basic facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition were noted in the order dated 24.03.2022 as under:
"1. For having assassinated the then Chief Minister of Punjab, the petitioner along with co-accused was tried in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302/307/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act in Sessions Case No.2-A of 1995.
2. After recording conviction under the aforestated offences, the Trial Court sentenced the petitioner and co-accused, Jagtar Singh Hawara to death sentence.
3. Thereafter, Murder Reference No. 6 of 2007 as well as Criminal Appeal No. 731-DB of 2007 preferred by the co-accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and others, were considered by the High Court vide its judgment dated 12.10.2010.
4. It must be noted here that the petitioner had not challenged his death sentence nor had he preferred any appeal from the decision of the Trial Court.
5. The High Court found substance in the appeal preferred by the co-accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and substituted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. However, the order of conviction and sentence as awarded to the petitioner was affirmed by the High Court.
6. Insofar as the conviction and sentence awarded to the co-accused Jagtar Singh Hawara is concerned, Criminal Appeal No. 1013 of 2013 at his instance along with other connected matters is pending consideration in this Court. During such pendency, a letter was written by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 27.09.2019 to the Chief Secretaries of the Governments of Punjab, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka and NCT of Delhi on the occasion of commemoration of 550th Birth Anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev Ji proposing special remission and release of prisoners.
7. We are now concerned in this writ petition with the alleged inaction on part of the concerned authorities in not commuting the death sentence awarded to the petitioner in keeping with the aforestated communication dated 27.09.2019. It is in this light that the present writ petition prays that the mercy petition preferred by the petitioner on 25.03.2012 be taken up for disposal immediately and his death sentence be commuted to imprisonment for life.
8. Notably, the prosecution in the instant crime was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation and as such, the authority to consider the issues regarding commutation and remission would be the Central Government."
2. It must be stated here that the petitioner never preferred any appeal, that is to say, no appeal was preferred by him either before the High Court or before this Court.
3. The order then adverted to the earlier order passed by this Court on 04.12.2020 and following observations made therein were also quoted:
"On a query made by the Court, Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India stated that the proposal has not been sent in view of the pending appeals of the co-accused in this Court. It is not denied that the petitioner has himself not filed any appeal against his sentence. Therefore, there is no question of awaiting the outcome of any appeal pending before this Court. It is obvious that the factum of the appeals pending at the behest of other co-accused would have no relevance to the proposal intended to be sent for consideration under Article 72 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG, therefore, seeks time to make a statement about the proposal as contemplated in the letter dated 27th September, 2019 to be sent for processing under Article 72 of the Constitution of India."
4. Thereafter, certain directions were issued so that the grievance raised by the petitioner could be addressed immediately.
5. Affidavits in response have since then been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 and the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI" for short). According to the CBI, it has already sent its comments to the Home Secretary on 05.04.2022 in response to the DO l
The authorities are obligated to consider a mercy petition and make a decision within a reasonable timeframe, irrespective of the pending appeal of the co-accused.
The executive has discretion to defer decisions on sensitive matters based on national security concerns.
The exercise of the right to file a mercy petition is the prerogative of the convict and the courts cannot indefinitely defer a judicially upheld sentence.
Presidential powers to grant mercy are independent from judicial decisions, requiring careful individual consideration without undue delay.
(1) Death sentence – Undue delay in issuing warrant of execution can violate rights of convicts under Article 21 of Constitution of India.(2) Death sentence – Delay in executing death sentence – Arti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.