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
Sunday, December 22, 2024

SC Adjourns Balwant Singh’s Plea To Commute Death Sentence in Punjab CM Assassination Case

Posted in: Supreme Court
Tue, Nov 5, 24, 16:43, 2 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 13460
Balwant Singh vs UOI, the Supreme Court after finally agreeing to re-examine the long pending issue afresh thus igniting a fresh glimmer of hope in this leading case has again deferred the plea filed by Rajoana to November 18


"All Criminals should be treated as patients and the jails should be hospitals admitting this class of patients for treatment and cure. It is a sign of a diseased mind." - Mahatma Gandhi

It is most shocking to see that 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 after finally agreeing to re-examine the long pending issue afresh thus igniting a fresh glimmer of hope in this leading case has again deferred the plea filed by Rajoana to November 18. It must be disclosed here for the exclusive benefit of my esteemed readers that a Bench of Supreme Court which is led by Honble Mr Justice BR Gavai and so also comprising of Honble Mr Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Honble Mr KV Viswanathan had on September 27 issued notice to the Centre, the Punjab State Government and so also the Chandigarh administration pertaining to the delay in deciding Rajoanas mercy petition and so also has asked the Centre, the Chandigarh administration and the Punjab State Government to respond within four weeks to Rajoanas 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 must be noted that the Apex Court Bench stated that they would only consider for relief after having heard the matter. It is no ordinary matter that none other than one of the most eminent, erudite and senior lawyer of Apex Court and former Attorney General of India Mr Mukul Rohatgi who appeared on behalf of Rajoana termed the delay in deciding the mercy petition as shocking. Mr Rohathi said unequivocally lamenting that:
This man has been in custody for 29 years till today. Originally he was convicted for an offence of bomb explosion in 1996. After conviction… Before Mr Rohatgi could complete, Honble Mr Justice Gavai asked the Punjab Counsel if a reply had been filed against the notice issued. The Counsel replied that they could not file a reply because of the vacation.

On this, we see that Honble Mr Gavai expressed the Courts view that the Court is willing to give 2 weeks for State of Punjab to file a reply. Mr Rohatgi while pressing for an interim relief underscored stating that:
After 29 years out of which 15 years he has been on death row, they have not disposed of my mercy plea when others have been commuted to life imprisonment in this case by the Supreme Court. And my early petition was disposed of in May 2023 by the Bench saying that they (concerned authorities) will take action on the mercy plea in due course. 1 and half years have gone by. A man who is now in 29 years [in jail], release him for 6 months or 3 months. He is a finished person. At least, let him see what is outside….You cannot have complete violation of his Article 21.

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 must be mentioned that the Punjab and Haryana High Court while confirming the conviction of co-accused Jagtar Singh Hawara had commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

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 Indias 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 Honble 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 petitioners 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 courts 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 cant 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 Rohatgis most strong and most valid contentions in defence of Rajoana cannot be brushed aside lightly by even the top court itself. Mr Rohatgi in a most emotional appeal said that:
To keep a prisoner on death row for so long violates their fundamental rights according to judgements of this court and is a ground for their sentence to be commuted. Rajoana is entitled to be released from death row forthwith. The moment he gets his commutation order, he can apply to be released since he has already spent 27 years behind bars. It is inhuman. Alternatively, if you wish to wait for the government's response to the mercy appeals, then at the very least, grant the petitioner parole.

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 snails pace and so also the huge respect that he commands among the Sikh community. I dont 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!

To conclude, 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 without anymore further delay 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 through his senior lawyer Mr Mukul Rohatgi!

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! There can be just no denying it!

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
In the light of the latest judgment provided by the SC for commuting the death penalty of former pm Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins to life imprisonment on the ground of excessive wait on govt and President’s part to decide their whim pleas
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India.
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v Union of India has upheld the validity of Aadhaar for availing government subsidies and benefits and for filing income tax returns! The lone dissenting Judge in this landmark case is Justice Dr DY Chandrachud. He differed entirely from the majority and struck down Section 139AA.
It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal.
Judgement by the Supreme Court about energy conservation and infrastructure laws in the state of Himachal Pradesh.
In a major and significant development, the Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has for the second time designated 37 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
On 17th October 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and Canada became the largest country in the world with a legal marijuana marketplace.
Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians? Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians? Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?
Finally Hindus Get The Right To Worship At Entire Disputed Land And Muslims Get 5 Acre In Ayodhya
I am a student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University studying LLB. I am currently majoring in 3 yrs LLB Course from New Law College, and have started with my last year from July 2019.
230th report of Law Commission of India, it will certainly produce more diamonds like the Chief Justice of India designate Sharad Arvind Bobde who is most invaluable and even Kohinoor diamond stands just nowhere near him
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act
Sections 126 to l29 deal with the privilege that is attached to Professional Communications between the legal advisors and their clients. Section 126 and 128 mention the circumstances under which the legal advisor can give evidence of such professional communication.
National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. UOI Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks.. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.
Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.
Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others.
upheld the Shebait rights of the erstwhile royals of Travancore in the administration, maintenance and management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
Judges cannot speak out even if they are humiliated. How long can the Supreme Court and the Judges suffer the humiliation heaped regularly?
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers.
Jugut Ram vs. Chhattisgarh the fact that a lathi is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.
Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd the said order extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute
the legendary Kesavananda Bharati whose plea to the Apex Court is considered the real reason behind the much acclaimed Basic Structure doctrine propounded in 1973
Amar Singh vs NCT Of Delhi conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulalthe governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed.
the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami
Indian Olympics Association vs. Kerala Olympic Association civil original jurisdiction dismissed Indian Olympics Association's (IOA) plea seeking transfer of a writ petition before Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court.
In Arnab's case, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud had minced no words to say that: There has to be a message to High Courts – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty
It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again
Parveen vs. State of Haryana while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India that exclusion of advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members is contrary to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Inderjeet Singh Sodhi vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board the dismissal of special leave petition is of no consequence on the question of law. We all must bear it in mind from now on
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu Xie the practice of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments.
It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of Sab Chalta Hain attitude of the governments in India.
Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since age
Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Bhagat Singh in exercise of itsextraordinary appellate jurisdiction that a statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs Odisha refused the plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case.
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. Maharashtra in page 386 of the citation that: The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act. Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed to introduce the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.The new proposal would amend the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to grant the Centre "revisionary powers" and allow it to "re-examine" films that have already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother
Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v/s Karnataka barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India has made it clear that State won't get a free pass by mere mention of national security.
State of MP vs Ghisilal the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers
Top