SC declines to consider immediate release for Balwant Rajoana

A bench, headed by justice Bhushan R Gavai, decided not to pass any orders in absence of affidavits from the Union govt and the state of Punjab in response to Rajoana’s plea demanding his release

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it will not consider the release of Balwant Singh Rajoana, a sympathiser of the Babbar Khalsa militant group who sought the commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment in connection with his role in the 1995 assassination of former Punjab chief minister Beant Singh, without first understanding the status of Rajoana’s mercy plea pending with the Centre.

A special court in July 2007 awarded the death sentence to Rajoana. (HT file photo)

A bench, headed by justice Bhushan R Gavai, decided not to pass any orders in absence of affidavits from the Union government and the state of Punjab in response to Rajoana’s plea demanding his release.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Rajoana, argued for his temporary release, but the bench, also comprising justices PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan, emphasised that it required clarity on the mercy plea status before any decisions could be made. “Let them (the Centre) decide and we can then hear a challenge, if there is any,” it added.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, confirmed that the mercy plea was likely still under consideration with the President and requested for more time to verify its status. Advocate Nupur Kumar, representing the Punjab government, where Rajoana is currently detained, also sought time to submit its stance on the case.

Consequently, the bench scheduled further proceedings for November 18, allowing the Centre and Punjab government to clarify their respective positions.

The development follows the bench’s September 25 decision to reassess Rajoana’s petition, more than a year after previously refraining from directing the Centre on the matter while examining his earlier petition.

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.

Rajoana’s current petition, filed through advocate Diksha Rai, maintained 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.

Rajoana, a former Punjab Police constable, was convicted for his involvement in an explosion outside the Punjab civil secretariat that killed Beant Singh and 16 others in 1995. A special court in July 2007 awarded the death sentence to Rajoana, along with another terrorist Jagtar Singh Hawara, in the assassination case. Rajoana was the second human bomb in case the first one would have failed in killing the Congress leader.

Rajoana was scheduled to be hanged on March 31, 2012 – two years after the Punjab & Haryana high court confirmed his capital punishment. The execution was however stayed on March 28, 2012, by the then Congress-led government at the Centre after Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) -- a Sikh religious body, filed a mercy petition with the President. The Shiromani Akali Dal, which was then in power in Punjab, also campaigned against his execution. The President at that time forwarded the mercy plea to the Union home ministry (MHA).

In September 2019, a communication was issued by the home ministry to commute Rajoana’s death sentence to life term coinciding with the 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev. However, Rajoana was not released, prompting him to move a petition in the Supreme Court in 2020.

During the hearing of this petition, the Centre and the Central Bureau of Investigation, which investigated the 1995 assassination case, opposed Rajoana’s plea for commutation of his sentence arguing that President is the final authority in the matter of granting clemency and that the September 2019 communication by MHA will not confer any right on Rajoana. The central government maintained that a decision on the mercy plea has to be deferred for the time being because “it has a serious potential of compromising the security of the nation or creating a law-and-order situation”. This affidavit stated that since Punjab is a border state, any decision on the mercy petitions filed on behalf of Rajoana has to be taken keeping in view the overall security scenario and terrorism perspective of the state. On its part, CBI added that any decision on Rajoana’s clemency must await the outcome of three criminal appeals pending before the Supreme Court in relation to the co-accused in the case.

Finally, on May 3, the Supreme Court wrapped up his 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 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,” stated the bench in its order.