New Delhi: The Supreme Court has fixed November 18 for hearing the application of death row convict Balwant Singh Rajoana in the murder case of former Punjab CM Beant Singh. In the petition, Rajoana has sought commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment and release on the basis of delay in taking decision on the mercy petition. The Supreme Court has asked the Central Government to take whatever decision it wants on the mercy petition or else we will consider Raoana’s application.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Government in the Supreme Court, said that Raoana’s mercy petition is pending with the President. Earlier, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Raoana, said that Raoana has been in jail for the last 29 years. He sought interim relief and said that Raoana should be released till the President takes a decision on the mercy petition.
The petitioner said that please Raoana should be released under interim order for six months or three months. The Supreme Court said that we want the answer of the Punjab government. Will hear after that. The Supreme Court bench led by Justice BR Gavai has said that it will first hear the matter and then consider any relief. During this, the Supreme Court told the Solicitor General to take whatever decision has to be taken on the mercy petition, otherwise we will consider the petition.
Supreme Court had issued notice on 27 September
The Supreme Court had issued a notice on September 27 on the application of 57-year-old Rajoana, asking the Center and the state to file their reply. The petitioner has filed an application in the Supreme Court under Article 32 asking that his death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment and also argued that he should be released. Also said that there has been a lot of delay in taking the decision on the mercy petition.
Mercy petition pending before the President
The mercy petition is pending before the President for 1 year and 4 months. On behalf of the petitioner, Mukul Rohatgi argued that there was a lot of delay in taking the decision on the will petition and this is shocking. Also said that the petitioner has been in jail for 29 years. He was convicted in the bomb blast case in 1996. During this, Justice Gavai has asked the lawyer of Punjab Government whether the reply has been filed on their behalf. Then the Punjab Government said that the reply could not be filed due to holidays.
Hearing postponed to November 18
The Supreme Court has said that the Punjab government should file its reply within two weeks and has postponed the hearing for November 18. During this, Rohatgi said that interim relief should be given in the case. Rohatgi said that Rajoana has been in jail for 28 years and 8 months, out of which, after getting death sentence for 17 years, he was kept in a small cell and for two and a half years he was kept in the dungeon. It has also been said that other co-accused are sentenced to life imprisonment. Rohatgi said that Rajoana’s mercy petition has been pending for more than a year. The petitioner has also said in his application that a mercy petition was filed on his behalf but it is pending.
Interview between the Time.news Editor and Legal Expert Dr. Aditi Sharma on the Balwant Singh Rajoana Case
Time.news Editor: Good morning, Dr. Sharma, and thank you for joining us today to discuss the significant developments in the Supreme Court concerning Balwant Singh Rajoana’s case. Could you first give us a brief overview of who Rajoana is and the context of his conviction?
Dr. Aditi Sharma: Good morning! Certainly. Balwant Singh Rajoana is a convict on death row for the assassination of Beant Singh, who was the Chief Minister of Punjab in the 1990s. Rajoana was sentenced in 2007 for his role in this politically charged murder, which occurred amid a highly tumultuous period in Punjab’s history. His case has been a point of contention, particularly regarding issues of delay and the process of mercy petitions.
Editor: That’s a helpful context. As you mentioned, Rajoana is currently seeking to have his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment, citing delays in the handling of his mercy petition. What are the legal precedents or implications of such delays in mercy petitions?
Dr. Sharma: The issue of delays in considering mercy petitions is significant in Indian law, as these delays can raise questions about the fairness of the judicial process. The Supreme Court often highlights the importance of timely decisions in such matters, which can relate to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. If a delay is deemed unreasonable, it can lead to commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment, as the ethos of the law is to ensure justice and timely resolution.
Editor: In this case, the Supreme Court has asked the Central Government to take action on Rajoana’s mercy petition. Why do you think this is important?
Dr. Sharma: This is critical because it shows the Court’s willingness to intervene and ensures that the executive arm of the government is held accountable. The Central Government must act promptly on matters of mercy petitions, especially when a life is at stake. By indicating that they may review Rajoana’s application if the Central Government does not respond, the Supreme Court underscores its role as a guardian of justice and human rights.
Editor: We also saw that Rajoana’s counsel sought interim relief, requesting his release while the mercy petition is considered. What are the chances of the Supreme Court granting such a request?
Dr. Sharma: The Court rarely grants interim relief in death penalty cases unless there are compelling reasons, such as a lack of clarity on the legal proceedings or potential violations of rights. In this situation, it seems the Court is leaning towards first hearing the responses from the Punjab government and the Central Government. Only then could they potentially consider interim measures. The Court has a heavy burden of responsibility, especially given the gravity of capital punishment.
Editor: You mentioned there’s a political undertone to this case. How does this impact the legal proceedings, if at all?
Dr. Sharma: Absolutely, the political context cannot be overlooked. Cases like Rajoana’s often stir public sentiment and political debate, particularly in a state like Punjab, where issues of militancy and political violence have historically been contentious. Political actors and their responses can influence the approach the courts take, although ideally, the legal process should remain independent of political machinations. Still, public opinion and political pressures can create a moral context within which legal decisions are made.
Editor: As the hearing date approaches on November 18th, what will be the next steps in this case?
Dr. Sharma: The next steps will entail the submissions from both the Central and Punjab governments as required by the Supreme Court. After receiving these inputs, the Court will hear the matters before it and decide on Rajoana’s application for commutation and any potential interim relief. The developments in this case will be closely watched, not just because of Rajoana’s status but also due to the broader implications for death penalty cases in India.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Sharma, for your insightful analysis on this complex case. We’ll be keeping an eye on the hearings and the subsequent decisions.
Dr. Sharma: Thank you for having me. It’s always a pleasure to discuss such crucial matters with an impact on our legal and political landscape.