Supreme Court Rejects Mercy Petition in Beant Singh Assassination Case

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on the mercy petition filed on behalf of Balwant Singh, a convict in the 1995 bomb blast that killed Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh along with 16 others. The case, which has been pending for years, sought commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment due to the prolonged delay in deciding the mercy petition. However, the Court upheld the government’s decision to defer any decision on the petition, citing national security concerns.

Background of the Case

The incident dates back to August 31, 1995, when a bomb blast outside the Punjab Secretariat claimed the life of then Chief Minister Beant Singh and several others. Balwant Singh, along with other accused, was convicted of planning and executing the attack. He was arrested on January 27, 1996, and sentenced to death by the trial court on July 27, 2007. His conviction and death sentence were upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on December 10, 2010.

However, while confirming Balwant Singh’s death sentence, the High Court commuted the death penalty of co-accused Jagtar Singh Hawara to life imprisonment. Unlike the other co-accused who appealed to the Supreme Court, Balwant Singh chose not to challenge his sentence before the apex court.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-quashes-criminal-case-in-kerala-key-ruling-on-reinvestigation-and-section-420-ipc/

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Arguments

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Balwant Singh, made the following arguments:

• The mercy petition had been pending for over a decade, causing unnecessary mental anguish to the petitioner.
• Government records, including a letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs dated September 27, 2019, suggested that Singh’s death sentence should be commuted as part of a special remission initiative.
• Other convicts in the same case had already been granted relief, with some being released under Article 161 of the Constitution.
• Past Supreme Court judgments, such as Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, V. Sriharan v. Union of India, and Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi), established a precedent for commuting death sentences where there was an excessive delay in deciding mercy petitions.

Respondents’ Arguments

Additional Solicitor General K.M. Natraj, representing the Union of India, countered with the following points:

• Balwant Singh himself never filed a mercy petition; rather, it was submitted by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) on his behalf.
• Singh had openly expressed his lack of remorse for the assassination and his distrust of the Indian judiciary, making him undeserving of mercy.
• The government had already taken steps to process his case, but the pending appeals of co-accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Lakhwinder Singh were relevant considerations.
• Security agencies had advised against granting clemency, as it could potentially compromise national security or lead to law-and-order problems.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government’s decision to defer any decision on Singh’s mercy petition. The Court’s key observations included:

• “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.”
• “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.”
• “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 a law and order situation.”

Significance of the Judgment

The ruling underscores the Supreme Court’s deference to the executive branch in cases where national security and law-and-order considerations are paramount. It also highlights the distinction between procedural delays and executive discretion in deciding mercy petitions. While courts have previously commuted death sentences due to delays, the presence of security concerns in this case made it an exception.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-acquits-man-in-wifes-murder-case-citing-doubts-in-circumstantial-evidence/

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s verdict in Balwant Singh’s case reaffirms the government’s authority to defer clemency decisions based on security threats. It also serves as a precedent for handling similar cases where political and security considerations intertwine with judicial processes. The ruling is a reminder that while judicial review remains an essential safeguard, the executive branch retains discretion in matters involving national security.

For now, Balwant Singh remains on death row, with his mercy petition deferred indefinitely. Whether the government will reconsider his plea in the future remains uncertain, but the Court has made it clear that such decisions fall squarely within the domain of the executive.

Petitioner Name: Balwant Singh.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Place Of Incident: Punjab, India.
Judgment Date: 03-05-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: balwant-singh-vs-union-of-india-&-ors-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-03-05-2023.pdf