Back
Pulls Up Odisha Over Delay in Dara Singh’s Plea
The on Wednesday expressed strong displeasure with the for its continued failure to decide the plea of Ravindra Pal alias Dara Singh, who is serving a for the 1999 murder of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two minor sons. The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi gave the board a final opportunity to take a decision by , warning that if no action is taken, the Court would step in.
“You take a decision whatever you want to. Otherwise we will take our own. If you don’t take a decision, we will,” the bench told the state’s counsel, adding, “We can’t tolerate this avoiding taking a decision.” The Court noted that Singh has been incarcerated for more than 26 years, and the matter had been adjourned multiple times to allow the board to deliberate.
Court’s Frustration Boils Over
During the hearing, the attempted to justify the delay by placing before the Court a letter from the , stating that a report from the was still awaited. The bench was unimpressed. “We are not informed about the decision of the ,” the Court observed, and asked, “How is it relevant? It is the board which has to take a decision.”
The Court made it clear that administrative communication between state departments was not an acceptable excuse. “We are not concerned about how you are communicating, to what authority you are communicating. You just take a decision,” the bench remarked. The matter was adjourned to , with a directive that the must apprise the Court of its decision by then.
Background of the Notorious Crime
The case dates back to the night of , when a mob led by Dara Singh trapped Graham Staines and his two sons, Philip (aged 10) and Timothy (aged 6), inside their station wagon in Manoharpur village, Keonjhar district, and set the vehicle ablaze. Staines and his wife Gladys worked with the , providing care for leprosy patients. Gladys Staines, who later received the Padma Shri, publicly forgave the killers and continued her humanitarian work in India.
A convicted Singh and sentenced him to death in . The the to life imprisonment in , a decision upheld by the in . The ’s original judgment had referred to an intention to “teach a lesson” to Staines for his religious activities, but those remarks were later modified after criticism, with the Court stating that “there is no justification for interfering in someone’s religious belief by any means.”
A Lingering Decision
Dara Singh, now over 60 years old, filed a before the seeking direction to the to consider his under the state’s . He claimed that he has served more than 26 years in prison without any or parole, and expressed regret for his actions, describing them as committed in a fit of “youthful rage.” He also cited the and referred to the ’s judgment allowing of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
Under Odisha’s policy, whose death sentences have been may be considered for after completing 25 years of incarceration, though such release is not automatic. The had reportedly considered Singh’s case in its meeting and even recommended his release based on good conduct, but the recommendation remained pending final approval.
Legal Implications and Precedent
The ’s intervention underscores the , which is an integral facet of the under . The Court’s reluctance to accept signals that cannot indefinitely deprive a convict of the opportunity to be considered for release, especially when the state’s own policy prescribes a framework.
Legal experts view this as a significant reminder to state governments and sentence review boards that the judiciary will not hesitate to enforce accountability. The case also highlights the tension between the in matters and the judiciary’s power to ensure that discretion is not exercised arbitrarily or with .
What Lies Ahead
With the next hearing fixed for , all eyes are on the Odisha . If no decision is announced by then, the may exercise its own authority to direct the release or lay down specific conditions for Singh’s . Given the high-profile nature of the case and the strong language used by the bench, the state is likely to expedite the process.
For legal professionals, this development serves as a crucial illustration of in the context of criminal justice administration. It also reiterates that the —recognized under through the —cannot be undermined by .
As the September deadline approaches, the legal community awaits a decision that could set a precedent for countless other waiting for their pleas to be processed in a timely manner.
