Balwant Singh v. Union Of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 261 Of 2020

Brief Facts

• In 1995, in a bomb blast the then Chief Minister of Punjab Shri Beant Singh, along with 16 others, lost their lives and a dozen others was injured. The present petitioner was arrested with respect to the said incident on 27.01.1996. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 120-B, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and u/s 3(b), 4(b) and 5(b) r/w sec. 6 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and awarded death sentence and the same is confirmed by the High Court.
• Mercy Petition was preferred on 25.03.2012, by Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee on behalf of the petitioner. However, according to the respondent Union of India, till date the petitioner has not preferred any Mercy Petition.
• Petitioner approached the Supreme Court claiming that despite the pendency of mercy petition for more than 10 years, no decision has been taken on such petition and thus, sought for commutation of sentence.

Issues

• Whether a death sentence awarded to the accused can be commuted to imprisonment for life due to inordinate delay in deciding the Mercy Petition.

Held

• The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the argument regarding pendency of the Mercy Petition and there being a delay of more than 10 years cannot be sustained on the following grounds:
  1. Firstly, the petitioner himself never submitted any Mercy Petition. The alleged Mercy Petition of year 2012 was filed by SGPC.
  2. Secondly, following the Ministry of Home Affairs’ communication on 27.09.2019, the process to consider commuting the petitioner’s death sentence began. A decision was made to postpone this consideration until the pending appeals before the Apex Court, filed by co-accused and the CBI, were resolved. Subsequently, following directives from the Hon’ble Apex Court on 04.12.2020 and 02.05.2022, the competent authority reviewed the matter again. It was decided to defer the commutation decision pending clarification based on reasons stated in the Ministry of Home Affairs’ affidavit. Thus, it cannot be alleged that there has been an inordinate delay in disposal of the Mercy Petition.
• 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 of 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.
• The stand of the Ministry of Home Affairs 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.

Relevant Para No

• 17,18,19, 20