Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Monday, December 23, 2024

SC To Re-Examine Bhai Balwant Singh Rajoana’s Plea For Commuting Death Penalty

Posted in: Criminal Law
Sun, Sep 29, 24, 12:07, 3 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 10197
Balwant Singh vs UOI, the Supreme Court has finally agreed to re-examine the long pending issue afresh thus igniting a fresh glimmer of hope in this leading case.

In an interesting turn of events after nearly three decades, we come to see that more than 16 months after refusing to commute the death penalty of former Punjab Chief Minister Mr Beant Singh murder case convict Bhai Balwant Singh Rajoana in the notable judgment titled Balwant Singh vs Union of India and Ors, the Supreme Court has finally agreed to re-examine the long pending issue afresh thus igniting a fresh glimmer of hope in this leading case.

It must be disclosed here for the exclusive benefit of my esteemed readers that a Bench of Supreme Court which is led by Hon’ble Mr Justice BR Gavai and so also comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Mr KV Viswanathan has issued notice to the Centre, the Punjab State Government and so also the Chandigarh administration pertaining to the delay in deciding Rajoana’s mercy petition and so also has asked the Centre, the Chandigarh administration and the Punjab State Government to respond within four weeks to Rajoana’s fresh petition for commutation of his death penalty on the strong premise that the Centre has utterly failed to take a decision on his long pending March 25, 2012 mercy petition till date. It must be mentioned here that this petition that has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeks the commutation of his death sentence citing ‘extraordinary’ and ‘inordinate delay’ of one year and four months in the resolution of his mercy petition which is still awaiting a decision from the President of India.

It is an undeniable and unpalatable truth that after being convicted of assassinating the former Punjab CM Mr Beant Singh in 1995, Rajoana has been in jail for 28 long years, awaiting his execution which is worse than even death penalty. This alone explains why I have always been a strongest proponent favouring the abolition of life sentence in my personal capacity. It also cannot be denied that Rajoana earlier was a police constable in Punjab State Police which he had joined on October 1, 1987 and definitely was not some hard core merciless terrorist who was trained most rigorously in Pakistan which has to be certainly borne in mind while considering his case most sympathetically and he was ostensibly most aggrieved and terribly upset by the sudden and unexplained disappearance of upwards of twenty-five thousand of Sikh civilians in Punjab between 1992 and 1995 or were killed and their bodies cremated by the police in unexplained extrajudicial executions as pointed out in esteemed web portal Wikipedia itself which cannot be ever denied!

What also must be definitely mentioned here is that the former Punjab CM Mr Beant Singh and 16 others were killed in an explosion that took place just outside the Civil Secretariat in Chandigarh on August 31, 1995. What also must be noted is that Rajoana was sentenced to death in 2007 by a Special Court. It is most disconcerting to note that his mercy petition has been hanging fire for an inordinately long period of more than 12 years which is an excruciatingly long spell which clearly defies logic and is truly incomprehensible.

It cannot be taken lightly that in his will, Rajoana had clearly said that his wish was to donate his eyes to Lakhwinder Singh (Ragi at Golden Temple Amritsar) and his kidney, heart or any other body parts to needy patients. This clearly demonstrates his humanitarian nature which makes him definitely more better eligible for being considered for mercy and cannot be just glossed over while considering his mercy petition! What also cannot be ever lightly dismissed is that on 28 March 2012, the India’s Home Ministry had stayed the execution following the clemency appeals that had been filed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) which is a world reputed Sikh organization with impeccable credentials which serves to make his case for mercy plea even more stronger! Not just this, he was also on 23 March 2012 awarded the title of Living Martyr by the Akal Takht which is the highest temporal seat of the Khalsa!

What also merits mentioning is that on May 3, 2023, the top court had refused to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment and had asked the Centre to take a decision on his mercy plea as and when it is deemed necessary. What is of immense significance that deserves mentioning and noting is that a three-Judge Bench led by Hon’ble Mr Justice BR Gavai had said clearly in no uncertain terms that:
The stand of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to defer the decision on the Mercy Petition of the petitioner is also a decision for the reasons given thereunder. It actually amounts to a decision declining to grant the same for the present. However, we need to note that the Bench had directed that the competent authority in due course of time would again as and when it is deemed necessary, may deal with the Mercy Petition, and take a further decision.

Adding more to it, the Bench had further stated that:
We also find that the Ministry of Home Affairs, upon material consideration of various reports from its different branches, has come to the conclusion that the consideration may be deferred as it could have an impact of compromising the security of the nation or creating law and order situation. It would not be within the domain of this Court to delve upon the decision of the competent authority to defer taking any decision at present. It is within the domain of the executive to take a call on such sensitive issues. As such this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue any further directions.

What also needs to be definitely borne in mind is that in his fresh petition, Rajoana has while striking a very passionate and emotional plea fervently submitted pointing out clearly, cogently and convincingly that:
About 01 year and 04 months have now elapsed since disposal of the petitioner’s first writ petition, and a decision on his fate still hangs under a cloud of uncertainty, causing deep mental trauma and anxiety to the petitioner every single living day, which by itself is a sufficient ground for exercise of this court’s Article 32 powers to allow the reliefs sought. There is a lot of merit in what has been pointed out. It cannot be denied that even the killers of former PM late Mr Rajiv Gandhi were later freed on the ground of a huge delay in deciding the mercy petition even though they had been trained by the dreaded terror organization LTTE in Sri Lanka and their role was clearly proved and they were Sri Lankans and were not an Indian unlike we see in case of Bhai Balwant Singh Rajoana who is an Indian Sikh having served earlier in Punjab police for many years and was not a member of some terror organization nor a foreign national! Still why should he be discriminated against and not accorded mercy as we saw in case of killers of former PM late Mr Rajiv Gandhi? This is what merits honest introspection by the top court and so also by the Centre!

Above all, what is definitely beyond a straw of doubt most significant to note is that while contending that Rajoana has been in jail for more than 28 years and on death row for 17 years, none other than senior counsel of Supreme Court – Mr Mukul Rohatgi who has been the former 12th Attorney General of India from 19 June 2014 to 18 June 2017 and who declined to again become Attorney General when offered for second time and I can say this with full sense of responsibility without any hesitation of any kind that he is one of the most eminent and most distinguished legal luminary, lawyer and jurist that our motherland India has ever produced in its soil contended most robustly on behalf of the convict Rajoana that he can’t be made to wait indefinitely on the ground of national security! Absolutely right! There can be just no denying or disputing it!

We also cannot ever dare to gloss over that Mr Mukul Rohatgi had earlier also most vehemently argued that keeping the petitioner on death row while sitting over his mercy plea for such a long time definitely violated his fundamental rights! Where is there any doubt about it? Mr Rohatgi’s most strong and most valid contentions in defence of Rajoana cannot be brushed aside lightly by even the top court itself.

In conclusion, it is now high time and the Supreme Court must definitely take a most sympathetic view of the long pending mercy petition of Bhai Balwant Singh Rajoana that has been proceeding at a snail’s pace and so also the huge respect that he commands among the Sikh community. I don’t think that in India there can be any person better suited than Mr Mukul Rohatgi to argue his case most passionately, most rationally and so also most convincingly and his mercy petition plea must be therefore dealt with most sympathetically considering what all Mr Rohatgi pointed out and above all the most irrefutable fact that he hails from Sikh community which has played the most stellar role in building a modern India without whom India can never be complete and who have always been totally committed in identifying themselves completely with India! His past track record as a police constable also cannot be brushed aside lightly nor what I have already pointed out hereinabove!

The ball is now in court of Apex Court! Let us hope fervently even now that his case will be decided most sympathetically by the Supreme Court and he too will be, to say the very least, given a chance to once again merge in the national mainstream by approving his mercy petition as he has so humbly requested! This will definitely go a long way in strengthening the credibility of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the people both in India and so also in abroad and so also of Centre not only in India but all across the globe if it plays its cards well in ensuring strictly that he again is most fairly allowed to breathe in fresh air after nearly three decades of rotting in jail! It will also instill more unflinching faith among the Sikh community not just in India but also in abroad which has always played the most pivotal role in not just building a modern India but also in always protecting Hindus whenever the need arose even against Mughals and Sikh Gurus like Guru Arjan Dev, Guru Teg Bahadur and Guru Gobind Singh among others never hesitated in shedding their own life or lives of their children for the protection of Hindus which is all recorded in history!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top