No Inordinate Delay in Mercy Petition Consideration When Filed by Third Parties: BALWANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA (2023 INSC 482)

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark judgment of BALWANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA (2023 INSC 482), addressed critical issues surrounding the consideration of mercy petitions, especially when such petitions are not directly filed by the convicted individual but by third parties. This case revolves around Balwant Singh Rajoana, who was convicted and sentenced to death for his involvement in a 1995 bomb blast that resulted in the assassination of Punjab's then Chief Minister, Beant Singh, among others.

The petitioner sought relief under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, contending that an inordinate delay exceeding eight years in deciding his mercy petition justified the commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment. The case not only scrutinizes procedural delays but also delves into the nuances of who is eligible to file mercy petitions and the implications thereof.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, after thorough deliberation, dismissed the petition filed by Balwant Singh Rajoana. The Court held that since the petitioner did not personally file the mercy petition—rather, it was filed by the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC)—the alleged delay did not constitute an inordinate delay warranting commutation. Additionally, the Court found that the Ministry of Home Affairs had valid reasons to defer the decision, citing potential national security implications and the pending appeals by co-accused individuals.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The petitioner relied on three Supreme Court judgments to bolster his argument:

• Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1
• V. Sriharan alias Murugan v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 242
• Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2014) 7 SCC 264

These cases dealt with the Supreme Court's stance on mercy petitions and the obligations of the executive in addressing them. However, the Court in the present case distinguished the facts, highlighting that the petitioner did not personally submit the mercy petition, thereby limiting the direct applicability of these precedents.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously analyzed the procedural aspects surrounding mercy petitions. A key point of contention was whether the petitioner’s sentence was subject to an inordinate delay in mercy petition consideration, especially when the petition was filed by a third party (SGPC) rather than the petitioner himself.

The Court observed that the petitioner had not filed any appeal against his sentence, and the mercy petition filed on his behalf was within the purview of Article 72, which allows the President of India to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment. The Ministry of Home Affairs' decision to defer the mercy petition was based on sensitive national security concerns and the interconnected pending appeals by co-accused, which the Court found justified.

Additionally, the Court emphasized the executive's discretion in matters of mercy petitions, especially those involving high-profile cases with potential implications for national security and law and order.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent regarding the timing and authority in handling mercy petitions, especially when filed by entities other than the convicted individual. It underscores the judiciary's stance on deferring to the executive's discretion in matters intertwined with national security considerations. Future cases involving third-party-filed mercy petitions may reference this judgment to understand the boundaries of judicial intervention and executive discretion.

Moreover, the decision clarifies that delays in mercy petition considerations may not always be deemed inordinate, especially when procedural and substantive reasons justify such delays.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 72 of the Constitution of India

Article 72 empowers the President of India to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment or to commute sentences in certain cases. This power is often exercised to show mercy to convicted individuals based on humanitarian grounds or other considerations.

Mercy Petition

A mercy petition is a formal request to the executive branch (President or Governor) seeking leniency in the execution of a sentence, typically for severe crimes. This can include requests to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment or to grant pardons.

Shri Mukul Rohtagi's Reliance on Precedents

The petitioner’s legal counsel referred to previous Supreme Court cases to argue that delays in mercy petitions can constitute a violation of the right to life under Article 21. However, the Court differentiated these cases based on the specifics of the mercy petition's filing and the involvement of third parties.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in BALWANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA reinforces the principle that not all delays in mercy petition consideration amount to inordinate delays warranting judicial intervention. The Court recognized the complexities involved when mercy petitions are filed by third parties and highlighted the executive's pivotal role in such sensitive matters. This decision delineates the boundaries between judicial oversight and executive discretion, particularly in cases with significant national security implications. Moving forward, this judgment will serve as a critical reference point for both litigants and executives in navigating the procedural and substantive facets of mercy petitions in India.