SC defers signing Rajoana mercy plea order

Rajoana, sentenced to death in 2007 for his role as a backup bomber in the blast that killed Beant Singh and 16 others, has been seeking the commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment.

Hours after it urged President Droupadi Murmu to decide the long-pending mercy petition of Balwant Singh Rajoana, a Babbar Khalsa sympathizer convicted in the 1995 assassination of former Punjab chief minister Beant Singh, within two weeks, the Supreme Court on Monday held off signing the order after solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta informed the court that the petition had not yet reached the President and remained pending with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).

Balwant Singh Rajoana (HT PHOTO)

Rajoana, sentenced to death in 2007 for his role as a backup bomber in the blast that killed Beant Singh and 16 others, has been seeking the commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment. His mercy plea, filed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) in 2012, remains pending, raising questions about the delay.

A bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan expressed dissatisfaction over the prolonged delay, underscoring that the mercy plea “ought to move.” However, it decided to wait until November 25 for categorical instructions from the Centre on the status and fate of the petition before proceeding with its earlier directive.

“The central government should act on it. Why not do it? It also requires the aid and advice of the Centre...We will not sign the order that we dictated in the morning. But you tell us on Monday next week what you have done,” the bench told SG Mehta.

The development came after an earlier hearing in the morning, during which the bench, in the absence of any representation from the Union government, directed the secretary to the President to place the matter before the President for the latter’s decision on Rajoana’s mercy plea within two weeks. At the time, the court also noted its readiness to consider granting temporary relief to the death row convict if the delay persisted.

However, SG Mehta appearing later in the day, requesting the bench not to sign the dictated order, citing that the file was still under consideration by the MHA and had not yet been placed before the President. According to Mehta, there was a “communication gap” since he had sent a message to senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Rajoana in the matter, in the morning about his inability to show up. The bench, while agreeing to defer signing the order, insisted on progress by the next hearing.

It asked advocate Diksha Rai, also appearing for Rajoana, to inform Rohatgi about the deferral, adding that the court might reinstate and pass the same order if there was no substantial movement by November 25. “Please inform Mr Rohatgi that we are not signing that order for now. We may pass the same order on Monday if there is no movement,” the bench told Rai.

The issue of Rajoana’s release carries significant political and national security implications. He was linked to the Babbar Khalsa, a militant Sikh separatist group responsible for violent activities during the insurgency in Punjab. His release is a sensitive issue for both the families of terrorism victims and the political dynamics in Punjab, raising concerns about the resurgence of pro-Khalistan sentiment.

During the earlier hearing on Monday morning, the bench took a grim view of the absence of any representative from the central government as it proceeded to pass an order stating: “Taking into consideration that the petitioner has been on the death row, we now direct the secretary, Honourable the President of India, to place the matter before the Honourable President with a request to consider the matter within two weeks.” In the event no decision is taken, this order added, the court will consider Rajoana’s plea to release him temporarily. The bench had scheduled the next hearing for December 5, at 10:30 am.

This order was dictated by justice Gavai after Rohatgi, representing Rajoana, argued for interim relief for his client, who has been on death row for over 20 years. Rohatgi highlighted the prolonged delay, stating: “Others convicted in the same case were granted relief by this court. This court converted their death sentences to life imprisonment, and now they are out. How is this delay justifiable for my client?”

The Punjab government, on its part, sought to distance itself from the issue, with its counsel contending: “We have no role to play. It is for the Union to decide as they say it is pending with the President.” However, the bench questioned this stance, pointing out: “The offence happened in Punjab. The Union filed an affidavit previously saying it’s a matter of national security. How do you say you don’t have any role?”

Rajoana, a former Punjab Police constable, was convicted for his involvement in a suicide bombing outside the Punjab Civil Secretariat in Chandigarh on August 31, 1995. The blast killed Beant Singh and 16 others, and Rajoana was identified as the backup bomber. A special court sentenced him to death in July 2007, a decision upheld by the Punjab and Haryana high court in 2010.

Rajoana was scheduled for execution on March 31, 2012, but the sentence was stayed following a mercy plea filed by SGPC. Since then, the plea has remained pending, with successive governments citing national security concerns for the delay.

In 2019, MHA proposed commuting Rajoana’s sentence as a gesture marking the 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev. However, this proposal was never formalised, and Rajoana moved the Supreme Court in 2020 to challenge the delay.

During the hearing of this petition, the Union government and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) opposed his release, citing concerns about national security and the potential for unrest in Punjab, a border state. The Centre argued that any decision on the mercy plea must consider the state’s security scenario and the potential resurgence of separatist sentiments. The CBI has also pointed to pending criminal appeals in related cases, urging that these be resolved before any decision on Rajoana’s clemency.

Finally, on May 3, the Supreme Court wrapped up this plea noting that MHA’s decision to defer the decision on Rajoana’s mercy petition on the ground of national security and law and order situation “actually amounts to a decision declining to grant the same for the present”. It rather allowed the Centre to consider his mercy plea “in due course”.

A year on, Rajoana’s filed the current petition through advocate Diksha Rai, maintaining that he is “neither a member of any anti nationalist organisation and nor has he ever subscribed to their views”, and therefore, the commutation of his sentence cannot be stalled by citing grounds of national security or public order. It added that inordinate delay in execution of a death row convict’s sentence and a final decision on his mercy petition has consistently been recognised by the apex court to invoke its powers under Article 32 to commute death sentence to life imprisonment.

“Keeping him in suspense, while consideration of his mercy petition by the Hon’ble President of India remains pending for years on end is an agony, which has created adverse physical conditions and psychological stresses on the petitioner, who has now been in jail for the past 28 years and 07 months, confined to a capital punishment cell of 8” x 10” for the last 17 years,” read the petition.