Supreme Court Slams Centre’s ‘Inordinate Delay’ in Deciding Death Row Convict’s Mercy Plea

New Delhi – In a sharp rebuke of executive inaction, the Supreme Court of India has severely criticized the Union government for its more than decade-long delay in deciding the mercy petition of Balwant Singh, a convict on death row for his role in the 1995 assassination of former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh. The Court underscored the profound implications of such prolonged indecision on the fundamental rights of a prisoner, setting a firm deadline for the next hearing and warning against any further adjournments.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria voiced its strong disapproval during a hearing where the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) requested additional time to file a status report on the mercy plea, which was first filed in 2012.

Rejecting the plea for more time, the bench’s frustration was palpable. Justice Mehta pointedly asked, “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.” This stark comment highlights the judicial exasperation with the executive branch's failure to perform its constitutional duty, leaving the convict in a state of suspended animation for 29 years, with 15 of those spent under the shadow of a death sentence.

The Court has now scheduled the matter for a final hearing on October 15, explicitly stating that the case “will not be adjourned at the account of the Respondent [Union of India].”

---

Background of the Case: A Long and Fraught History

The case originates from the assassination of Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh on August 31, 1995, in a bomb blast at the Chandigarh Secretariat complex, which also killed sixteen others. The separatist group Babbar Khalsa International claimed responsibility for the attack.

Balwant Singh, a former police officer, was convicted by a Special CBI Court in July 2007, along with several co-accused, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Explosive Substances Act. He was sentenced to death. In a notable act of defiance against the judicial system, Singh refused to appeal his conviction or sentence.

The legal saga took a crucial turn when the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) filed a mercy petition on his behalf under Article 72 of the Constitution on March 25, 2012. This led to an indefinite stay of his execution, which was scheduled for just days later. Since then, the petition has been pending with the Ministry of Home Affairs, mired in bureaucratic inertia.

The matter was further complicated in 2019 when the Union government publicly announced its decision to commute Singh's death sentence to life imprisonment as a humanitarian gesture for the 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev. However, this announcement was never formalized through an official order. Subsequently, the Home Minister confirmed in Parliament that Singh remained on death row, creating a bewildering contradiction that has yet to be resolved.

Legal Arguments and Constitutional Questions

Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi has repeatedly argued that the inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding the mercy plea violates the petitioner's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Citing established jurisprudence, he contended that prolonged solitary confinement and the mental anguish of living under a death sentence for an extended period constitute cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.

Rohatgi emphasized that the law concerning mercy petitions does not hinge on who files the plea. “With great respect, this is contrary to the provisions. The provisions say it does not matter who moves; it should be considered. It is a matter of Article 21 and 433 [CrPC],” he argued, rebutting any potential suggestion that the petition's validity was questionable because the convict himself did not file it.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has passed multiple orders urging the government to act. In March 2022, a bench led by then-Justice U.U. Lalit had directed the government to make a decision by April 30, 2022, “irrespective of the appeals pending before the Court.” Despite these clear directives, no decision has been forthcoming.

Rohatgi highlighted the government's recurring justification for the delay: national security. He questioned this rationale, asking how commuting the sentence of one man who has already spent nearly three decades in prison could pose a threat to the nation, especially when the immediate issue is his continued status on death row, not his release.

Judicial Scrutiny and the Path Forward

The bench’s latest observations signal a potential end to the protracted legal limbo. By framing the issue as a failure of the executive—"Why did you not hang him till now? Who is to be blamed for that?"—the Court has shifted the onus squarely onto the government to provide a definitive answer.

During the hearing, the bench also explored the practical consequences of a potential commutation. Justice Mehta noted that under Rajasthan Jail Rules, individuals convicted of terror-related offenses are ineligible for parole, suggesting that commutation to a life sentence would not automatically lead to premature release. This observation addresses underlying security concerns while separating them from the core constitutional question of deciding the mercy plea.

The Court’s firm stance in scheduling a non-adjournable hearing on October 15 follows a January order from a special bench led by the Chief Justice, which had already given the Union “one last opportunity” to decide the petition. The failure to comply has now led to this decisive judicial intervention.

This case serves as a critical test of the principles laid down in landmark rulings like Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India , which held that inordinate delay is a supervening circumstance that can render the execution of a death sentence unconstitutional. As the petitioner has now endured 29 years of imprisonment, the Court is faced with the profound question of whether the continued delay has vitiated the death sentence itself. The outcome on October 15 will be closely watched by legal experts, human rights advocates, and the executive, as it stands to reaffirm the judiciary's role as the ultimate guardian of fundamental rights against executive apathy.