Supreme Court Grills Centre on 12-Year Mercy Plea Delay for Beant Singh's Assassin

New Delhi – The Supreme Court has sharply questioned the Union government's protracted inaction in the case of Balwant Singh Rajoana, a death row convict in the 1995 assassination of former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh. During a heated hearing on September 24, a three-judge bench pointedly asked the Centre, “Why did you not hang him till now? Who is to be blamed for that?” This question underscores the judiciary's growing impatience with the executive's failure to decide on a mercy petition pending for over 12 years, a delay Rajoana's counsel argues is a flagrant violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria, was hearing a fresh writ petition by Rajoana seeking commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court has now set a final hearing date for October 15, making it clear that no further adjournments will be granted at the behest of the respondent, the Union of India.

The Crux of the Argument: Inordinate Delay and Article 21

Appearing for Rajoana, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi presented a compelling case centered on the well-established legal principle that an inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding a mercy petition constitutes cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment, thereby vitiating the death sentence. "This man has been on death row for 15 years," Rohatgi submitted, highlighting that Rajoana has been incarcerated for nearly 30 years in total.

Rohatgi argued that the prolonged uncertainty has taken a severe toll on the convict, stating, "He is sometimes in solitary confinement, I don't know if he is in his senses or not. One does not know what is going on." This argument directly invokes the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court in cases like Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India , which held that such delays are grounds for commutation.

The Senior Advocate also drew a powerful parallel with the case of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, a convict in the 1993 Delhi bomb blast case. "In Bhullar's case, he was sentenced to death, and the petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. In curative, the Bhullar's case was commuted to life, and today, Bhullar is out," Rohatgi noted. He clarified that his immediate plea was not for release, but for commutation to end the torment of being on death row. "Your lordship has said repeatedly, leaving it on death row for more than two or three years, is sufficient to invoke Article 21," he reminded the bench.

Centre's Position and the Court's Sharp Rebuke

Representing the Union government, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj cited the gravity of the offense and the potential impact on national security and law and order as reasons for the deferment. "A sitting chief minister was murdered…and there were consequential riots in the entire state. It is a serious offence," the ASG argued.

This justification, however, prompted the bench's critical inquiry. Justice Sandeep Mehta’s retort, "Question is why did you not hang him till now? Who is to be blamed for that? At least we would not have stayed his execution," shifts the legal focus from the convict's crime to the executive's subsequent inaction. The Court’s observation implies that if the offense was indeed so grave, the State had a corresponding duty to carry out the sentence lawfully and without undue delay. By failing to act on either the execution or the mercy plea, the government has created the very grounds for the sentence's potential commutation.

A Long and Convoluted Legal History

Balwant Singh Rajoana, a former Punjab Police constable and member of the Babbar Khalsa International, was sentenced to death by a special CBI court in 2007 for his role in the assassination of Beant Singh on August 31, 1995. Rajoana was the backup human bomb in the conspiracy.

Notably, Rajoana never appealed his conviction or sentence, expressing a lack of faith in the Indian judicial system. A death warrant was issued for his execution in March 2012. However, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) filed a mercy petition on his behalf under Article 72 of the Constitution, leading the Ministry of Home Affairs to stay the execution on March 28, 2012.

The mercy plea has been in limbo ever since. The Union government has previously argued that the petition could not be decided for two primary reasons: first, it was filed by an organization and not the convict himself, and second, appeals by co-accused were pending before the Supreme Court. However, Rajoana's counsel has consistently maintained that under constitutional provisions, the identity of the petitioner is irrelevant.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has intervened. Over the years, various benches have directed the Centre to expedite its decision. In January 2024, a bench led by the current Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, granted the Union a "last chance" to decide the matter, warning that the Court would otherwise proceed to hear the plea on its merits. Despite these repeated proddings, the executive has remained indecisive.

A previous plea by Rajoana was disposed of in May 2023, with the Court stating the "competent authority" could deal with the mercy petition "as and when deemed necessary." The current petition, filed in 2024, is a fresh challenge based on the continued delay.

Legal Implications and the Road Ahead

This case has evolved into a significant constitutional standoff between the judiciary and the executive over the administration of the death penalty. It tests the limits of executive discretion in capital cases and reinforces the judiciary's role as the ultimate guardian of fundamental rights, even for those on death row.

The Court's pointed questions suggest a deep skepticism towards the "national security" argument when used to justify indefinite administrative delay. The outcome of the October 15 hearing could have far-reaching implications for capital punishment jurisprudence in India. A decision to commute Rajoana's sentence would reaffirm the "inordinate delay" doctrine as a robust safeguard against administrative apathy. Conversely, should the Court defer to the executive once more, it could be perceived as weakening a crucial constitutional check.

For legal professionals, the proceedings offer a masterclass in constitutional litigation, highlighting the strategic use of precedents like Bhullar's case and the framing of individual rights against the state's claims of security. The final hearing is poised to be a landmark moment, potentially setting a new precedent on the judiciary's power to intervene when executive inaction leads to a violation of Article 21.