‘Why Haven’t You Hanged Him?’: Supreme Court Grills Centre Over Decades-Long Delay in Deciding Rajoana’s Mercy Plea

New Delhi – In a pointed and critical hearing, the Supreme Court of India on September 24, 2024, sharply questioned the Union government’s prolonged inaction on the mercy petition of Balwant Singh Rajoana, a Babbar Khalsa terrorist on death row for the 1995 assassination of Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh. Rajoana, who has been incarcerated for nearly three decades, seeks the commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the unconscionable delay by the executive in deciding his clemency plea, which has been pending since 2012.

A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria expressed its exasperation with the recurring delays. The court’s frustration was encapsulated in a direct question posed by Justice Mehta to the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K.M. Nataraj, representing the Union: "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 sharp rebuke highlights the central legal conflict of the case: the debilitating limbo faced by a death row convict due to executive indecision, and the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights under such circumstances. The court has now set a final hearing for October 15, making it clear that no further adjournments will be granted to the government.

The Core Argument: Inordinate Delay as a Violation of Article 21

Appearing for Rajoana, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi built his case on the established jurisprudence that an inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding a mercy petition violates the convict's Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"This man has been on death row for 15 years," Rohatgi argued forcefully, reminding the bench that Rajoana has been in prison for a total of 29 years. He detailed the psychological torment of such prolonged uncertainty, 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."

Rohatgi invoked the precedent set in the case of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar ( Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT of Delhi) ), a convict in the 1993 Delhi bomb blast case whose death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court on grounds of an eight-year delay in deciding his mercy plea and his deteriorating mental health.

"Your lordship has said repeatedly, leaving it on death row for more than two years or three years, is sufficient to invoke Article 21. I was convicted in 2007," Rohatgi submitted, arguing that the 12-year delay in Rajoana’s case is far beyond any reasonable timeframe and mandates judicial intervention for commutation.

A History of Judicial Impatience and Executive Hesitation

The September 24 hearing is the latest chapter in a long legal saga marked by the Supreme Court's repeated attempts to spur the executive into action. A previous writ petition by Rajoana led to a January 2024 order where a special bench gave the Union a "last opportunity" to decide the mercy plea, failing which the court would decide the matter itself.

Despite these clear directives, the Union government once again sought more time, prompting the bench's strong reaction. ASG K.M. Nataraj cited the gravity of the offense—the assassination of a sitting Chief Minister—and its potential impact on national security and law and order as reasons for the careful consideration required. He noted that the incident had previously led to riots.

However, the bench appeared unconvinced, viewing the government's justification as a reason for swift action rather than indefinite delay. The court’s query, "Why did you not hang him till now?" suggests a deep skepticism towards using national security as a perpetual shield for executive inaction, effectively leaving a convict in a state of suspended animation.

The Complicated Backdrop of the Rajoana Case

Balwant Singh Rajoana, a former Punjab police constable, was convicted by a special CBI court in 2007 for his role in the suicide bombing that killed Chief Minister Beant Singh and 16 others on August 31, 1995. Rajoana was the backup human bomb in case the primary attacker, Dilawar Singh, failed. The assassination was claimed by the separatist group Babbar Khalsa International.

Rajoana has consistently shown defiance towards the Indian judicial system, refusing to appeal his conviction or sentence. His death warrant was issued in March 2012, but his execution was stayed after the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) filed a mercy petition on his behalf under Article 72 of the Constitution.

The Union Home Ministry has previously argued that the mercy petition is technically invalid as it was not filed by the convict himself. It has also contended that a decision cannot be made while appeals of other co-accused in the case are pending. The Supreme Court has, in earlier hearings, been critical of these procedural arguments, emphasizing the substantive right to a timely decision.

Adding another layer of complexity is the political dimension. In 2019, on the 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev, the Union government announced its decision to commute Rajoana’s death sentence to life imprisonment. However, this was later contradicted in Parliament by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, leaving Rajoana's legal status in flux.

Legal Implications and the Path Forward

The Rajoana case places the judiciary at a critical juncture. It must balance the state's arguments of national security and the severity of the crime against the fundamental rights of a convict who, for over a decade, has lived under the shadow of a death sentence without a final decision on his plea for mercy.

• Enforcing Executive Accountability: The court's firm stance signals a move towards holding the executive accountable for its constitutional duty to decide mercy petitions in a timely manner. An indefinite delay is increasingly being viewed by the judiciary not as cautious deliberation but as an abdication of responsibility.

• Strengthening Article 21 Jurisprudence: A decision to commute Rajoana's sentence would powerfully reaffirm the principles laid down in cases like Shatrughan Chauhan vs. Union of India , cementing inordinate delay as a definitive ground for commutation, irrespective of the nature of the crime.

• The 'Third-Party' Mercy Petition: The case may also clarify the legal standing of mercy petitions filed by organizations on behalf of a convict, particularly one who refuses to engage with the legal system. The court's focus has been on the substance of the delay, implying that the origin of the petition is a secondary concern.

As the matter is set for a final hearing on October 15, the legal community will be watching closely. The Supreme Court's decision will not only determine the fate of Balwant Singh Rajoana but will also have far-reaching implications for the administration of the death penalty and the delicate balance of power between the judiciary and the executive in India.

Case Details: Balwant Singh v. UOI & Ors, W.P.(Crl.) No. 414/2024