BALWANT SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 265 · Decided: 03-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
265
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 265
265
BALWANT SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 261of 2020)
MAY 03, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Arts. 32, 72, 161 – Mercy Petition –
Petitioner was convicted for having committed an offence u/s. 120-
B, 302, 307 of IPC and u/s. 3(b), 4(b) and 5(b) r/w s. 6 of Explosives
Substances Act, 1908 and was awarded death sentence – Death
reference of the petitioner was confirmed by the High Court –
Petitioner neither preferred appeal against the decision of the High
Court nor preferred the mercy petition – The mercy petition for the
petitioner was preferred by the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee
– The case of the petitioner is that the Union has not taken any step
upon mercy petition for more than 10 years and therefore the sentence
of death imposed on the petitioner be commuted to the life
imprisonment and with such plea the petitioner has approached the
Supreme Court u/Art. 32 – Held: Mercy petition was filed in the
year 2012 – The communication of the Ministry of Home Affairs
dated 27.09.2019, the proposal for considering the commutation
of the death sentence of the petitioner was started and a decision
was taken to keep the same pending till disposal of the pending
appeals before Supreme Court, filed by the co-accused as well as
by CBI – Further, directions were again issued by the Supreme Court
on 04.12.2020 and 02.05.2022 and that matter was considered by
the competent authority – Thus, it cannot be said that there was an
inordinate delay in disposal of mercy petition – 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 law and order situation – Therefore,
not in the domain of the Supreme Court to delve upon the decision
of the competent authority to defer taking of any decision at present
– It is within the executive to take a call.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
266
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1. It is also evident that the argument regarding
pendency of the Mercy Petition and there being a delay of more
than 10 years cannot be sustained. Firstly, the petitioner himself
never submitted any Mercy Petition. The alleged Mercy Petition
of year 2012 was filed by SGPC. Further, after the communication
of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 27.09.2019, the proposal
for considering the commutation of the death sentence of the
petitioner was started and a decision was taken to keep the same
pending till disposal of the pending appeals before this Court,
filed by the co-accused as well as by CBI, as according to the
competent authority, it would have a bearing and it could be
relevant for taking final decision on the said proposal of
commutation. Further, it was after the directions issued by this
Court on 04.12.2020 and 02.05.2022 that the matter was again
considered by the competent authority and it was decided to defer
the question of commutation in view of the reasons given in the
affidavit filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Thus, it cannot be
alleged that there has been an inordinate delay in disposal of the
Mercy Petition. [Para 17][277-H; 278-A-C]
2. Without going into any further issues as argued by counsel
for the parties, it is found that there are directions by this Court
vide orders dated 4.12.2020 and 2.5.2022 to dispose of the Mercy
Petition of the petitioner. It is also found 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 law and order
situation. 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. As such this Court does
not deem it appropriate to issue any further directions. [Para
19][278-E-G]
Shatrughan Chauhan and anr. v Union of India & Ors.
(2014) 3 SCC 1 : [2014] 1 SCR 609; V. Sriharan alias
Murugan v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 242 :
[2014] 1 SCR 1093; Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
267
Delhi) and anr. (2014) 7 SCC 264 : [2014] 4 SCR 1138
– distinguished

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.