Supreme Court Orders Consideration of Mercy Petition Despite Pending Co-accused Appeal: Balwant Singh vs. Union of India (2022)

Date of the Judgment: May 02, 2022
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Can a mercy petition be kept pending indefinitely because a co-accused’s appeal is still being heard? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a death penalty conviction. The court clarified that the pendency of a co-accused’s appeal should not delay the consideration of a mercy petition of another convict. This judgment ensures that each case is assessed on its own merits and avoids unnecessary delays in the justice process. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

The petitioner, Balwant Singh, was convicted and sentenced to death for the assassination of the then Chief Minister of Punjab. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302, 307, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. While Balwant Singh did not appeal his death sentence, his co-accused, Jagtar Singh Hawara, appealed to the High Court. The High Court upheld Balwant Singh’s conviction and death sentence but commuted Jagtar Singh Hawara’s death sentence to life imprisonment. Jagtar Singh Hawara further appealed to the Supreme Court, which is still pending.

A letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, dated 27.09.2019, proposed special remission and release of prisoners on the occasion of the 550th Birth Anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Balwant Singh filed a mercy petition on 25.03.2012, seeking commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment. However, the authorities did not act on his mercy petition, citing the pending appeal of his co-accused. This inaction led Balwant Singh to file a writ petition in the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Balwant Singh and sentenced him to death. The High Court upheld the conviction and death sentence for Balwant Singh. However, the High Court commuted the death sentence of the co-accused, Jagtar Singh Hawara, to life imprisonment. Jagtar Singh Hawara’s appeal is currently pending before the Supreme Court. Despite the Supreme Court’s order on 04.12.2020, directing the authorities to consider the mercy petition, the authorities delayed the process, citing the pending appeal of the co-accused. This led to the filing of the present writ petition.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Article 72 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the power of the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offense. The court also considered the communication dated 27.09.2019 from the Ministry of Home Affairs, which proposed special remission and release of prisoners.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are as follows:

Arguments by Respondent No. 1 (Union of India):

• The mercy petition of the petitioner should be considered only after the disposal of the appeal of the co-accused, which is pending before the Supreme Court.

• The petitioner himself did not file a mercy petition, but rather it was filed by certain organizations on his behalf.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

• The Supreme Court’s order dated 04.12.2020 was clear, and the respondents were obligated to consider the mercy petition despite the pending appeal of the co-accused.

• The mercy petition has always been under consideration by the concerned authorities, as indicated by the communications addressed to the petitioner.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the authorities could delay the consideration of the petitioner’s mercy petition due to the pending appeal of a co-accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on its previous order dated 04.12.2020 in the same case, which had already clarified that the pendency of the co-accused’s appeal should not delay the consideration of the petitioner’s mercy petition.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on its previous order dated 04.12.2020, stating that the matter had to be considered despite the pendency of the appeal preferred by the co-accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court focused on ensuring that the petitioner’s mercy petition was considered without undue delay. The court emphasized that the pendency of a co-accused’s appeal should not impede the processing of the petitioner’s mercy plea. The court’s reasoning was driven by the need for timely justice and the fact that the petitioner had not filed any appeal, making his case distinct from that of his co-accused.

The Court rejected the argument that the mercy petition should be considered only after the disposal of the co-accused’s appeal. The court reiterated that its order dated 04.12.2020 had already clarified that the matter had to be considered despite the pendency of the co-accused’s appeal. The court noted that the petitioner had not filed any appeal, distinguishing his case from that of his co-accused.

The court stated, “In terms of the direction issued by this Court in its order dated 04.12.2020, the matter be considered by the concerned authorities without being influenced by the fact that the appeal preferred on behalf of the co-accused is still pending consideration before this Court.” The Court further directed that, “Let the decision be taken as early as possible and preferably within two months from today.”

The Court also noted that, “the matter could be and had to be considered despite the pendency of the appeal preferred by the co-accused.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench unanimously agreed on the directions given.

Key Takeaways

• The pendency of a co-accused’s appeal should not delay the consideration of a mercy petition.
• Authorities must consider mercy petitions independently and without being influenced by other pending cases.
• The Supreme Court’s directions aim to ensure timely justice and avoid unnecessary delays in the legal process.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the concerned authorities to consider the petitioner’s mercy petition without being influenced by the fact that the appeal preferred on behalf of the co-accused is still pending consideration before the Court. The decision was to be taken as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of the order (May 02, 2022).

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the pendency of a co-accused’s appeal should not delay the consideration of a mercy petition. This clarifies and reinforces the principle that each case must be assessed on its own merits, ensuring timely justice. The Supreme Court reiterated its previous position on the matter.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in Balwant Singh vs. Union of India ensures that mercy petitions are considered promptly, without being delayed by the pendency of a co-accused’s appeal. This judgment reinforces the importance of timely justice and the independent assessment of each case. The court directed the authorities to decide on the mercy petition within two months, emphasizing the need for a swift resolution.