Supreme Court Upholds Deferment of Mercy Petition in Bomb Blast Case: Balwant Singh vs. Union of India (2023) INSC 482 (3 May 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 3 May 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 482
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Vikram Nath, J., and Sanjay Karol, J.

Can the Supreme Court intervene and order the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment solely based on the delay in deciding a mercy petition? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a petitioner convicted for involvement in a bomb blast that resulted in the death of the then Chief Minister of Punjab and 16 others. The court examined whether the delay in deciding the mercy petition warranted the commutation of the death sentence and also considered if the pendency of appeals by co-accused should halt the consideration of a mercy petition.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, delivered a unanimous judgment. The judgment was authored by Justice Vikram Nath.

Case Background

On August 31, 1995, a bomb blast resulted in the death of the then Chief Minister of Punjab, along with 16 others, and injured a dozen more. The petitioner, Balwant Singh, was arrested on January 27, 1996, for his involvement in the conspiracy and execution of the blast.

The Trial Court convicted Balwant Singh, along with six other co-accused, on July 27, 2007, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Explosives Substances Act, 1908. The petitioner was sentenced to death. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence on December 10, 2010, but commuted the death sentence of one of the co-accused, Jagtar Singh Hawara, to life imprisonment.

The petitioner did not appeal the High Court’s decision. According to the petitioner, a Mercy Petition was filed on his behalf on March 25, 2012, but the Union of India claims that no such petition was filed by the petitioner himself. The Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) filed the mercy petition on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner sought commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the delay of over 10 years in deciding his mercy petition.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the petitioner and co-accused on July 27, 2007, sentencing the petitioner to death. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence on December 10, 2010, but commuted the death sentence of co-accused Jagtar Singh Hawara to life imprisonment. The petitioner did not file an appeal. The Supreme Court noted that appeals filed by the co-accused are still pending.

Initially, the Ministry of Home Affairs had deferred the decision on the mercy petition citing the pendency of appeals of the co-accused. The Supreme Court in its order dated December 4, 2020, directed that the pendency of appeals of co-accused should not be a reason for deferring the mercy petition of the petitioner. The Supreme Court in its order dated May 2, 2022, directed the authorities to consider the matter without being influenced by the pending appeals and to take a decision within two months.

Legal Framework

The petitioner sought relief under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which grants the Supreme Court the power to issue directions or orders for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The petitioner also sought commutation of his death sentence under Article 72 of the Constitution of India.

Article 72 of the Constitution of India states:
“Power of President to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases.—(1) The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence—(a) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial; (b) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends; (c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.”

The court also considered Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the power of the Governor to grant pardons, etc.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner’s counsel, Shri Mukul Rohtagi, argued that the delay of over 10 years in deciding the mercy petition warranted the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. He relied on the letter dated September 27, 2019, from the Ministry of Home Affairs, which indicated that the petitioner’s case was to be considered for commutation under Article 72 of the Constitution of India.

• Shri Rohtagi cited the judgments in Shatrughan Chauhan and anr. v Union of India & Ors., V. Sriharan alias Murugan v. Union of India & Ors., and Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi) and anr. to support his claim that inordinate delay in deciding mercy petitions can be a ground for commutation.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Shri K.M. Natraj, Additional Solicitor General, argued that the petitioner did not deserve any mercy due to his contemptuous conduct before the High Court and his lack of remorse. He also pointed out that the petitioner himself had not filed a mercy petition, and the petition dated March 25, 2012, was filed by SGPC.

• The respondent argued that the decision on the mercy petition should be deferred until the disposal of the appeals filed by the co-accused, which are pending before the Supreme Court. Reliance was placed upon the judgment in Harbans Singh v. State of U.P.

• The respondent further contended that there was no delay in considering the mercy petition, as the process started after the Ministry of Home Affairs’ communication on September 27, 2019. They also stated that the matter was considered after the Supreme Court’s directions on December 4, 2020, and May 2, 2022.

• The respondent submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs had decided to defer the decision on the mercy petition due to potential security concerns and the possibility of creating a law and order situation.

Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the following issues were implicitly addressed:

1. Whether the delay in deciding the mercy petition warrants the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment.
2. Whether the pendency of appeals by co-accused should halt the consideration of a mercy petition.
3. Whether the decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs to defer the decision on the mercy petition is valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court distinguished the cases of Shatrughan Chauhan and anr. v Union of India & Ors. [CITATION: (2014) 3 SCC 1], V. Sriharan alias Murugan v. Union of India & Ors. [CITATION: (2014) 4 SCC 242], and Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi) and anr. [CITATION: (2014) 7 SCC 264], stating that the facts and circumstances were different in those cases. These cases were relied upon by the petitioner to argue that inordinate delay in deciding mercy petitions can be a ground for commutation.
• The Supreme Court cited the judgment of the Guwahati High Court in Kusumbala Tarun Das v. Union of India [CITATION: (2011) SCC Online Gau 370], to support the respondent’s argument that the petitioner himself had not submitted any Mercy Petition.
• The Supreme Court cited the judgment of Harbans Singh v. State of U.P. [CITATION: (1982) 2 SCC 101], to support the respondent’s argument that the decision in the appeals pending before this Court would be a relevant material while considering the Mercy Petition.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The Court acknowledged that the petitioner himself did not file the mercy petition and that the process started after the communication of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated September 27, 2019.
• The Court noted that the Ministry of Home Affairs decided to defer the decision on the mercy petition due to security concerns and the possibility of creating a law and order situation.
• The Court emphasized that it is within the domain of the executive to take a call on such sensitive issues and that it would not be appropriate for the Court to delve into the decision of the competent authority to defer the decision on the mercy petition.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the delay in deciding the mercy petition warranted commutation of the death sentence, as argued by the petitioner. However, the Court rejected this argument, citing that the petitioner himself did not file the mercy petition and that the process started after the communication of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated September 27, 2019. The Court also took into account the security concerns raised by the Ministry of Home Affairs and held that it is within the domain of the executive to take a call on such sensitive issues.

The Court’s decision was to uphold the decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs to defer the consideration of the mercy petition. The Court held that it would not be appropriate to issue any further directions. The Court also stated that the decision to defer the mercy petition was a decision in itself, declining the same for the present.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The petitioner did not file the mercy petition himself.
• The process for considering the mercy petition started after the communication of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated September 27, 2019.
• The Ministry of Home Affairs decided to defer the decision due to security concerns and the possibility of creating a law and order situation.
• It is within the domain of the executive to take a call on such sensitive issues.

The Court stated, “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.”

The Court also noted, “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.”

Further, the Court 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.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered unanimously by the bench.

The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of the executive’s role in matters concerning national security and law and order. It also highlights that the judiciary will not interfere with the executive’s decisions in such sensitive matters unless there is a clear violation of law or constitutional principles.

The decision could have implications for future cases involving mercy petitions and the extent to which the judiciary can intervene in executive decisions, especially those related to national security.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs to defer the decision on the mercy petition of the petitioner.
• The Court emphasized that the judiciary will not interfere with executive decisions on sensitive matters related to national security and law and order.
• The Court clarified that the delay in deciding a mercy petition should be considered from the date when the process actually started and not from the date of the alleged filing of the petition.
• The Court also clarified that the pendency of appeals by co-accused is not a ground for halting the consideration of a mercy petition. However, the Court upheld the deferment based on security concerns.

This judgment sets a precedent that the executive has the power to defer decisions on mercy petitions based on security concerns and that the judiciary will not interfere with such decisions unless there is a clear violation of law or constitutional principles. This could lead to a more cautious approach by the judiciary in intervening in executive decisions, especially those related to national security.

Directions

The Supreme Court 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.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the decision to defer the mercy petition was valid as it was based on security concerns, and the judiciary should not interfere with the executive’s decisions on sensitive matters related to national security and law and order. This case does not change the previous position of law but rather reaffirms the principle that the executive has the power to take decisions on sensitive issues, and the judiciary will not interfere with such decisions unless there is a clear violation of law or constitutional principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Balwant Singh, upholding the decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs to defer the consideration of his mercy petition. The Court emphasized that the judiciary should not interfere with executive decisions on sensitive matters related to national security and law and order. The Court also clarified that the delay in deciding a mercy petition should be considered from the date when the process actually started and not from the date of the alleged filing of the petition.