The executive has discretion to defer decisions on sensitive matters based on national security concerns.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. The present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) call for the records of Mercy Petition dated 25.03.2012 pertaining to clemency to the petitioner, filed before the Hon’ble President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution of India.

(b) issue appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondents to commute the death sentence awarded to the petitioner into imprisonment for life due to inordinate delay of more that 08 years in deciding the Mercy Petition dated 25.03.2012.

(c) pass any other or further order which Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

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 co-accused 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, 1860¹ [for short ‘IPC’] 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 respondent-Union of India, till date the petitioner has not preferred any Mercy Petition. It was Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee² [SGPC] 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:

“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

Major Dhyan Cand National Stadium,

Women Safety Division, 2nd Floor,

India Gate, New Delhi-110002

September 27, 2019

Adviser to the Administrator,

No. 227010

Da