Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.261 OF 2020
BALWANT SINGH Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents
O R D E R
The basic facts leading to the filing of the instant writ
petition were noted in the order dated 24.03.2022 as under:
“1. For having assassinated the then Chief Minister
of Punjab, the petitioner along with co-accused was
tried in respect of offences punishable under
Sections 302/307/120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive
Substances Act in Sessions Case No.2-A of 1995.
2. After recording conviction under the aforestated
offences, the Trial Court sentenced the petitioner
and co-accused, Jagtar Singh Hawara to death
sentence.
3. Thereafter, Murder Reference No.6 of 2007 as
well as Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2007 preferred
by the co-accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and others,
were considered by the High Court vide its judgment
dated 12.10.2010.
4. It must be noted here that the petitioner had
not challenged his death sentence nor had he
preferred any appeal from the decision of the Trial
Court.
5. The High Court found substance in the appeal
preferred by the co-accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and
substituted the death sentence to imprisonment for
life. However, the order of conviction and sentence
as awarded to the petitioner was affirmed by the
High Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2022.05.05
18:16:34 IST
Reason:
2
6. Insofar as the conviction and sentence awarded
to the co-accused Jagtar Singh Hawara is concerned,
Criminal Appeal No.1013 of 2013 at his instance
along with other connected matters is pending
consideration in this Court. During such pendency,
a letter was written by the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India on 27.09.2019 to the
Chief Secretaries of the Governments of Punjab,
Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka and NCT of Delhi on the
th
occasion of commemoration of 550 Birth Anniversary
of Guru Nanak Dev Ji proposing special remission and
release of prisoners.
7. We are now concerned in this writ petition with
the alleged inaction on part of the concerned
authorities in not commuting the death sentence
awarded to the petitioner in keeping with the
aforestated communication dated 27.09.2019. It is in
this light that the present writ petition prays that
the mercy petition preferred by the petitioner on
25.03.2012 be taken up for disposal immediately and
his death sentence be commuted to imprisonment for
life.
8. Notably, the prosecution in the instant crime
was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation
and as such, the authority to consider the issues
regarding commutation and remission would be the
Central Government.”
It must be stated here that the petitioner never
preferred any appeal, that is to say, no appeal was preferred
by him either before the High Court or before this Court.
The order then adverted to the earlier order passed by
this Court on 04.12.2020 and following observations made
therein were also quoted:
“On a query made by the Court, Mr. K.M. Nataraj,
learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on
behalf of the Union of India stated that the
proposal has not been sent in view of the pending
appeals of the co-accused in this Court. It is not
denied that the petitioner has himself not filed any
appeal against his sentence. Therefore, there is no
question of awaiting the outcome of any appeal
pending before this Court. It is obvious that the
factum of the appeals pending at the behest of other
co-accused would have no relevance to the proposal
3
intended to be sent for consideration under Article
72 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG, therefore, seeks time
to make a statement about the proposal as
th
contemplated in the letter dated 27 September, 2019
to be sent for processing under Article 72 of the
Constitution of India.”
Thereafter, certain directions were issued so that the
grievance raised by the petitioner could be addressed
immediately.
Affidavits in response have since then been filed on
behalf of respondent no.1 and the Central Bureau of
Investigation (“CBI” for short). According to the CBI, it has
already sent its comments to the Home Secretary on 05.04.2022
in response to the DO letter dated 29.03.2022 issued by
respondent no.1.
The response filed by respondent no.1 states as under:
“18. After taking inputs from the concerned
stakeholders and keeping in view the appeal filed by
CBI [Criminal Appeal No.2277/2011] and appeal filed
by Jagtar Singh Hawara [Criminal Appeal
No.1013/2013] which are pending for consideration.
The case was examined in the Ministry of Home
Affairs and the proposal was submitted to His
Excellency President of India for his consideration
th
on 20 April 2022 recommending the following:
a. that the decision on the mercy petitions
filed on behalf of convict Balwant singh
Rajoana under Article 72 of the
Constitution may be considered after the
verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the above mentioned two appeals.”
4
Two basic submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
respondent no.1 are as under:
I. Since the appeal of the co-accused is presently
pending consideration by this Court, the mercy
petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner would
logically be ripe for consideration only after the
disposal of the appeal.
In response, it is submitted by the
counsel for the petitioner that the order dated
04.12.2020 passed by this Court was quite clear and
the respondents were obliged to consider the mercy
petition despite the pendency of the appeal
preferred on behalf of the co-accused.
II. It was submitted that the petitioner himself did not
prefer any mercy petition, though certain
organizations had preferred mercy petitions on his
behalf.
In response, it is submitted on behalf of
the petitioner that said mercy petition has always
engaged the attention of the concerned authorities
and the communications addressed by the authorities
to the petitioner indicate that such mercy petition
is under consideration.
Without getting into the issue whether the petitioner
himself had preferred the mercy petition, considering the
communications on record as well as the fact that the
petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition, in our
5
view, there would be no embargo in considering the matter in
the light of the directions issued by this Court in its order
dated 04.12.2020. Furthermore, as the order had made it quite
clear, the matter could be and had to be considered despite
the pendency of the appeal preferred by the co-accused.
In the circumstances, we direct as under:
a. 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.
b. Let the decision be taken as early as possible
and preferably within two months from today.
List the matter for further consideration on 22.07.2022.
............................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
............................J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
............................J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
New Delhi,
May 02, 2022