Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

Supreme Court Declines Commutation of Death Sentence Due to Pending Appeals and Security Concerns

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on May 3, 2023, the Supreme Court of India declined to commute the death sentence of Balwant Singh into life imprisonment due to the pendency of appeals filed by co-accused and security concerns. The case, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 261 of 2020, raised the issue of inordinate delay in deciding the mercy petition filed by Singh.

Background:

Balwant Singh was convicted for his involvement in a bomb blast that resulted in the death of the then Chief Minister of Punjab, along with several others. The trial court awarded Singh the death penalty, which was later confirmed by the High Court. However, while the death sentence of his co-accused was commuted to life imprisonment, Singh did not file any appeal after the High Court's judgment.

The Mercy Petition:

Singh claimed that a mercy petition was filed on his behalf in 2012. However, the Union of India disputed receiving any such petition. The Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a letter in September 2019, proposing the commutation of Singh's death sentence to life imprisonment under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution. The letter, sent to the Chief Secretaries of several states, including Punjab, listed Singh as one of the prisoners whose case was to be considered for commutation.

Delay in Decision and Pending Appeals:

Singh's counsel argued that the delay of over 10 years in deciding the mercy petition warranted the commutation of his sentence. However, the Additional Solicitor General representing the Union of India contended that Singh had not expressed remorse and had used contemptuous language before the High Court, justifying the refusal of mercy. Moreover, as the appeals filed by the co-accused were still pending before the Supreme Court, their outcome could potentially impact Singh's case.

Court's Decision:

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, noted that Singh had not personally filed any mercy petition and that the alleged petition was filed by the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) on his behalf. The court further observed that the Ministry of Home Affairs had decided to defer the consideration of Singh's mercy petition due to the pending appeals and concerns about national security and law and order.

In its order, the court declined to issue further directions, stating that it was within the domain of the executive to make decisions on sensitive issues. The competent authority was directed to reconsider the mercy petition at a later stage, when deemed necessary.

D.D-3.May.2023

BALWANT SINGH  vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.   

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/03-May-2023-Balwant-Vs-UOI.pdf"]

Latest Legal News