Holding

The Court held that there was no inordinate delay and that the executive's decision to defer consideration of the mercy petition is within its domain, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.

Summary

Balwant Singh was convicted and sentenced to death for his role in the 1995 bomb blast that killed Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh. A mercy petition on his behalf was filed by the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee in 2012, but the petitioner himself never lodged any petition. The petitioner claimed an inordinate delay of over ten years in deciding the mercy petition and sought commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment. The Ministry of Home Affairs, after a 2019 communication proposing remission for eight Sikh prisoners, deferred the decision on Balwant Singh’s mercy petition citing national security concerns, a stance later affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court held that there was no undue delay, that the petitioner’s lack of a personal petition was material, and that the executive’s discretion in such matters is beyond judicial interference. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the matter left to the competent authority for future consideration.

Issues considered

The existence of an inordinate delay in the consideration of the mercy petition filed on behalf of Balwant Singh.
Whether the Supreme Court can intervene in the executive's decision to defer the mercy petition on grounds of national security.
The relevance of pending appeals of co-accused to the disposal of the petitioner's mercy petition.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 161, s. Article 32, s. Article 72
Explosives Substances Act, 1908s. 3(b), s. 4(b), s. 5(b) read with 6
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 302, s. 307

Subjects

mercy petitiondeath penaltycommutationexecutive discretionArticle 72Article 161national securitydelaySupreme Court directions

Judgment

[2023] 4 S.C.R. 265 265

BALWANT SINGH A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 261of 2020)
MAY 03, 2023 B

[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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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.
H
265
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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 :
H [2014] 1 SCR 1093; Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of
BALWANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 267

Delhi) and anr. (2014) 7 SCC 264 : [2014] 4 SCR 1138 A
– distinguished.
Kusumbala Tarun Das v. Union of India (2011) SCC
Online Gau 370; Harbans Singh v. State of U.P. (1982)
2 SCC 101 : [1982] 3 SCR 235 – referred to.
Case Law Reference B
[2014] 1 SCR 609 distinguished Para 8
[2014] 1 SCR 1093 distinguished Para 8
[2014] 4 SCR 1138 distinguished Para 8
[1982] 3 SCR 235 referred to Para 10 C

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.)
No. 261 of 2020.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Rupesh Kumar, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, D
Ms. Neelam Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, Advs. for the Petitioner.
K M Nataraj, ASG, Gaurav Dhama AAG, Rajat Nair, Ms. Priyanka
Das, Piyush Beriwal, Divyansh H Rathi, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Vatsal
Joshi, Chitransh Sharma, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Malvika Raghavan,
Ajay Pal, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Advs. for the Respondents. E
Anurag Singh, Anil Kaushik, Anil Kumar Mishra, Advs. for the
Intervenor.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VIKRAM NATH, J.
F
1. The present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) call for the records of Mercy Petition dated 25.03.12 pertaining
to clemency to the petitioner, filed before the Hon’ble President
of India under Article 72 of the Constitution of India; G
(b) issue appropriate writ, order or directions directing the
respondents to commute the death sentence awarded to the
petitioner into imprisonment for life due to inordinate delay of more
that 08 years in deciding the Mercy Petition dated 25.03.12;
H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A (c) pass any other or further order which Your Lordships may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. Pleadings have been exchanged.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
B
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are stated
hereunder:
4.1. On 31.8.1995, in a bomb blast the then Chief Minister of
Punjab Shri Beant Singh, along with 16 others, lost their lives and a
C dozen others were injured. The present petitioner, along with 8 others,
who had hatched a conspiracy and had executed the said bomb blast,
were put to trial. It would be relevant to mention that the present petitioner
was arrested with respect to the said incident on 27.01.1996. The Trial
Court vide judgment dated 27.07.2007 convicted the petitioner along
with co- accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, Gurmeet Singh, Lakhwinder
D Singh, Shamsher Singh and Nasib Singh. The petitioner along with co-
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara have been convicted for offences under
Sections 120-B, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 1 and u/s.3(b),
4(b) and 5(b) r/w 6 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and awarded
death sentence. In death reference, the High Court vide judgment dated
E 10.12.2010 confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
However, while confirming the conviction of the co-accused Jagtar Singh,
it commuted the death sentence into life imprisonment. Other co-accused
preferred appeal before this Court.
However, the present petitioner did not file any appeal after the
F judgment of the High Court. According to the petitioner, a Mercy Petition
was preferred on 25.03.2012. However, according to the respondent-
Union of India, till date the petitioner has not preferred any Mercy Petition.
It was Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee2 which preferred
the aforesaid Mercy Petition on behalf of the petitioner.
5. The grievance of the petitioner, as apparent from the petition is
G
that, as no decision has been taken on his Mercy Petition for more than
10 years, he should be granted the commutation of his death sentence
into imprisonment for life.

1
For short ‘IPC’
2
H SGPC
BALWANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 269
[VIKRAM NATH, J.]

6. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner A
has relied upon a letter dated 27.09.2019 issued by the Ministry of Home
Affairs,
Government of India addressed to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Punjab communicating that 8 Sikh persons be given special
remission under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and released B
from prison and a further proposal for commutation of death sentence to
life imprisonment of one prisoner (petitioner) is to be processed under
Article 72 of the Constitution of India. All concerned departments were
required to take appropriate action in that regard. Along with the said
letter is attached the list of 9 Sikh prisoners, 8 with respect to whom
remission was given under Article 161 of the Constitution and one C
(petitioner) whose case was to be considered for commutation of death
sentence to life imprisonment under Article 72 of the Constitution. It
would be appropriate to reproduce the letter dated 27.09.2019 minus the
annexure:
“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA D
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
Major Dhyan Cand National Stadium,
Women Safety Division, 2nd Floor,
India Gate, New Delhi – 110 002 E
September 27, 2019
Adviser to the Administrator,
No.227010
Dated 10-10-2019
F
PA/PSH 229010
Dated 11/10/19
To
The Chief Secretary
G
Government of
Punjab/Gujarat/Haryana/Karnataka/ NCT of Delhi
Sub: Commemmoration of 550th Birth Anniversary of Guru
Nanak Dev Ji – Special Remission and Release of
Prisoners.
H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A I am directed to say that on the occasion of commemoration
of 550th Birth Anniversary of Guru Nanak Devi Ji, the Government
of India has decided that 8 such prisoners may be granted special
remission and death sentence of one Sikh prisoner may be
commuted to life imprisonment. The details of these nine Sikh
prisoners are given at Annexure.
B
2. It has been decided that 8 Sikh prisoners be given special
remission under Article 161 of the Constitution and released from
prison. The proposal for commutation of death sentence to life
imprisonment of one prisoner is to be processed under Article 72
of the Constitution of India. The State Government/Union Territory
C Administration concerned and Centre-State Division of Ministry
of Home Affairs are requested to take all required action in this
regard.
3. I am also directed to convey the concurrence of the Central
Government to the State Government/ Union Territories to the
D remission and release of eight Sikh prisoners (details mentioned
in Annexure) for the cases where approval/concurrence/
consultation of/with the Central Government is required under
Article 161 or Article 72 of the Constitution of India, as the case
may be or under any other law in force.
E 4. This issues with the approval of the competent authority.
Encl: As above
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-(Arun Sobti)
F Deputy Secretary (PR & ATC),
Phone:075297
Email: dspr.atc@mha.gov.in
Copy to:
G Joint Secretary (CS), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.”
7. The eight prisoners who were granted remission as per the
annexure are:
(i). Lal Singh @ Manjit Singh
(ii). Devinder Singh Bhullar
H
BALWANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 271
[VIKRAM NATH, J.]

(iii). Subheg Singh A
(iv). Nand Singh
(v). Harjinder Singh Kali
(vi). Waryam Singh @ Sabir @ Giani
(vii). Gurdeep Singh Khera B
(viii). Balbir Singh
The only prisoner whose commutation of death sentence was to
be processed under Article 72 of the Constitution of India was the
petitioner.
C
8. Learned senior counsel has thereafter drawn our attention to
the correspondence between different organs of the state with respect
to commutation of death sentence of the petitioner. However, it is stated
that till date no decision has been taken. It is under these circumstances
that Shri Rohtagi, learned senior counsel prayed that as the State and
D
the Union of India have not been able to decide the Mercy Petition
which is pending for more than 10 years, this Court itself may grant that
commutation. Shri Rohtagi placed reliance upon the following three
judgments of this Court in support of his submissions:
1. Shatrughan Chauhan and anr. v Union of India & Ors.3;
E
2. V. Sriharan alias Murugan v. Union of India & Ors.4;
and
3. Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi) and anr.5
9. On the other hand Shri K.M.Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor
General submitted that the petitioner having expressed in specific terms F
that he has no faith in the judiciary of this country and that he did not
regret at all being part of the crime and further has used contemptuous
terms before the High Court which have been duly recorded, he does
not deserve any mercy in view of his conduct. It is further submitted
that till date the petitioner himself has not submitted any Mercy Petition. G
The Mercy Petition dated 25.03.2012 attached with the petition is by the
SGPC under Article 72 of the Constitution of India. The communication

3
(2014) 3 SCC 1
4
(2014) 4 SCC 242
5
(2014) 7 SCC 264 H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A dated 27.09.2019 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, referred to above, is
only a request to the state government to send a proposal for commutation
of death sentence to life imprisonment under Article 72 of the Constitution
of India. It is submitted that once the petitioner has not filed any Mercy
Petition himself, there is no question of granting any relief as claimed.
Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Guwahati High Court in the
B
case of Kusumbala Tarun Das v. Union of India6. Another objection
taken by learned ASG is to the effect that Criminal Appeals filed by the
co-accused are still pending before this Court, as such consideration of
any Mercy Petition would arise only after disposal of those appeals.
Details of three Criminal Appeals filed by two co-accused Lakhwinder
C Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara and also one Criminal Appeal filed by
the CBI against the commutation of the sentence of Jagtar Singh Hawara,
are as follows:

D

E

10. According to learned ASG, the decision in these appeals pending
before this Court would be a relevant material and while considering the
Mercy Petition the same could have a bearing. As such it would be
F
appropriate to await the decision of the pending appeals. In support of
his submission, reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in the
case of Harbans Singh v. State of U.P.7
11. Shri Natraj, learned ASG further made a submission that there
is no delay in consideration of the Mercy Petition. According to Shri
G
Natraj, it is only after 27.09.2019 that the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, required the state government to send the proposal
for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment under Article 72

6
(2011) SCC Online Gau 370
7
H (1982) 2 SCC 101
BALWANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 273
[VIKRAM NATH, J.]

of the Constitution. It is thereafter that the process has started. Further A
it is submitted that during the pendency of the present proceedings, two
orders were passed by this Court on 4.12.2020 issuing certain directions
and again on 2.5.2022 issuing further directions. Both the orders are
reproduced below:
Order dated 04.12.2020: B

“By the letter dated 27th September, 2019, the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India has written to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Punjab/Gujarat/Haryana/Karnataka/NCT of Delhi
that on the occasion of commemoration of 550th Birth Anniversary
of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, special remission and release of prisoners C
are proposed. In particular, the said letter states as follows:
“It has been decided that 8 sikh prisoners be given special
remission under Article 161 of the Constitution and released from
prison. The proposal for commutation of death sentence to life
imprisonment of one prisoner is to be processed under Article 72 D
of the Constitution of India. The State Government/Union Territory
Administration concerned and Centre-State Division of Ministry
of Home Affairs are requested to take all required action in this
regard.”
E
On a query made by the Court, Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of
India stated that the proposal has not been sent in view of the
pending appeals of the co-accused in this Court. It is not denied
that the petitioner has himself not filed any appeal against his
sentence. Therefore, there is no question of awaiting the outcome F
of any appeal pending before this Court. It is obvious that the
factum of the appeals pending at the behest of other co-accused
would have no relevance to the proposal intended to be sent for
consideration under Article 72 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG, therefore, seeks time to make a G
statement about the proposal as contemplated in the letter dated
27th September, 2019 to be sent for processing under Article 72
of the Constitution of India.
List the matter on 8th January, 2021.”
H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A Order dated 02.05.2022:
“The basic facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition
were noted in the order dated 24.03.2022 as under:
“1. For having assassinated the then Chief Minister of Punjab, the
petitioner along with co-accused was tried in respect of offences
B
punishable under Sections 302/307/120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act in
Sessions Case No.2-A of 1995.
2. After recording conviction under the aforestated offences, the
Trial Court sentenced the petitioner and co-accused, Jagtar Singh
C
Hawara to death sentence.
3. Thereafter, Murder Reference No.6 of 2007 as well as Criminal
Appeal No.731-DB of 2007 preferred by the co-accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara and others, were considered by the High Court
vide its judgment dated 12.10.2010.
D
4. It must be noted here that the petitioner had not challenged his
death sentence nor had he preferred any appeal from the decision
of the Trial Court.
5. The High Court found substance in the appeal preferred by the
E co- accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and substituted the death
sentence to imprisonment for life. However, the order of conviction
and sentence as awarded to the petitioner was affirmed by the
High Court.
6. Insofar as the conviction and sentence awarded to the co-
F accused Jagtar Singh Hawara is concerned, Criminal Appeal
No.1013 of 2013 at his instance along with other connected matters
is pending consideration in this Court. During such pendency, a
letter was written by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India on 27.09.2019 to the Chief Secretaries of the Governments
G of Punjab, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka and NCT of Delhi on the
occasion of commemoration of 550th Birth Anniversary of Guru
Nanak Dev Ji proposing special remission and release of prisoners.
7. We are now concerned in this writ petition with the alleged
inaction on part of the concerned authorities in not commuting the
death sentence awarded to the petitioner in keeping with the
H
BALWANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 275
[VIKRAM NATH, J.]

aforestated communication dated 27.09.2019. It is in this light that A
the present writ petition prays that the mercy petition preferred
by the petitioner on 25.03.2012 be taken up for disposal
immediately and his death sentence be commuted to imprisonment
for life.
8. Notably, the prosecution in the instant crime was conducted by B
the Central Bureau of Investigation and as such, the authority to
consider the issues regarding commutation and remission would
be the Central Government.”
It must be stated here that the petitioner never preferred any
appeal, that is to say, no appeal was preferred by him either before C
the High Court or before this Court.
The order then adverted to the earlier order passed by this Court
on 04.12.2020 and following observations made therein were also
quoted:
D
“On a query made by the Court, Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of
India stated that the proposal has not been sent in view of the
pending appeals of the co-accused in this Court. It is not denied
that the petitioner has himself not filed any appeal against his
sentence. Therefore, there is no question of awaiting the outcome E
of any appeal pending before this Court. It is obvious that the
factum of the appeals pending at the behest of other co-accused
would have no relevance to the proposal intended to be sent for
consideration under Article 72 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG, therefore, seeks time to make a F
statement about the proposal as contemplated in the letter dated
27th September, 2019 to be sent for processing under Article 72
of the Constitution of India.”
Thereafter, certain directions were issued so that the grievance
raised by the petitioner could be addressed immediately. G
Affidavits in response have since then been filed on behalf of
respondent no.1 and the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”
for short). According to the CBI, it has already sent its comments
to the Home Secretary on 05.04.2022 in response to the DO letter
dated 29.03.2022 issued by respondent no.1. H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A The response filed by respondent no.1 states as under:
“18. After taking inputs from the concerned stakeholders and
keeping in view the appeal filed by CBI [Criminal Appeal No.2277/
2011] and appeal filed by Jagtar Singh Hawara [Criminal Appeal
No.1013/2013] which are pending for consideration. The case
B was examined in the Ministry of Home Affairs and the proposal
was submitted to His Excellency President of India for his
consideration on 20th April 2022 recommending the following:
a. that the decision on the mercy petitions filed on behalf of convict
Balwant singh Rajoana under Article 72 of the Constitution may
C be considered after the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the above mentioned two appeals.” Two basic submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for respondent no.1 are as under:
I. Since the appeal of the co-accused is presently pending
consideration by this Court, the mercy petition preferred on behalf
D of the petitioner would logically be ripe for consideration only after
the disposal of the appeal.
In response, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that
the order dated 04.12.2020 passed by this Court was quite clear
and the respondents were obliged to consider the mercy petition
E despite the pendency of the appeal preferred on behalf of the co-
accused.
II. It was submitted that the petitioner himself did not prefer any
mercy petition, though certain organizations had preferred mercy
petitions on his behalf.
F In response, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that said
mercy petition has always engaged the attention of the concerned
authorities and the communications addressed by the authorities
to the petitioner indicate that such mercy petition is under
consideration.
G Without getting into the issue whether the petitioner himself had
preferred the mercy petition, considering the communications on
record as well as the fact that the petitioner has preferred the
instant writ petition, in our view, there would be no embargo in
considering the matter in the light of the directions issued by this
Court in its order dated 04.12.2020. Furthermore, as the order
H
BALWANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 277
[VIKRAM NATH, J.]

had made it quite clear, the matter could be and had to be considered A
despite the pendency of the appeal preferred by the co-accused.
In the circumstances, we direct as under:
a. In terms of the direction issued by this Court in its order dated
04.12.2020, the matter be considered by the concerned authorities
without being influenced by the fact that the appeal preferred on B
behalf of the co-accused is still pending consideration before this
Court.
b. Let the decision be taken as early as possible and preferably
within two months from today.
C
List the matter for further consideration on 22.07.2022.”
12. It is was next submitted that under the above directions,
proceedings were taken up for consideration ignoring the aspect of
pending appeals. In the meantime, multiple representations were also
received and the same were under consideration for due analysis. D
13. It was next submitted by the learned ASG that considering the
prevailing situation, a decision has been taken by the Ministry of Home
Affairs that it would be appropriate to defer taking any decision on the
Mercy Petition as it could have serious potential of compromising the
security of the nation or creating a law and order situation.
E
14. It was further submitted that the present petition deserves to
be dismissed in view of the decision already taken as communicated to
this Court vide affidavit dated 29.09.2022.
15. On the direction of the Court, Shri Natraj produced the relevant
record relating to the Ministry of Home Affairs resulting into the decision F
taken for deferring the disposal of the Mercy Petition as communicated
vide affidavit dated 29.09.2022. The said file was perused by the Court.
16. Although Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner had requested for perusal of the file of the Ministry of
Home Affairs but the same was seriously objected to by Shri Natraj, G
learned ASG. This Court also did not deem it necessary that the said file
dealing with a sensitive issue be given access to the petitioner.
17. From the above facts and circumstances, 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 H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
C 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.
18. We may also record here that the three decisions relied upon
D by Shri Rohtagi in support of his submission regarding inordinate delay in
disposal of the Mercy Petition and resultantly commutation in such cases
having been granted by this Court, do not help the petitioner in view of
the facts and situation being different in those three cases and in the
present case.
E 19. Without going into any further issues as argued by counsel for
the parties, we find 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. We also find that the Ministry of Home Affairs, upon material
consideration of various reports from its different branches, has come to
F 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
G to issue any further directions.
20. The stand of the Ministry of Home Affairs to defer the decision
on the Mercy Petition of the petitioner is also a decision for the reasons
given thereunder. It actually amounts to a decision declining to grant the
same for the present.
H
BALWANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 279
[VIKRAM NATH, J.]

21. It is, however, directed that the competent authority, in due A
course of time, would again as and when it is deemed necessary, may
deal with the Mercy Petition, and take a further decision.
22. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly with the aforesaid
observations.
23. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. B

Ankit Gyan Writ Petition disposed of.
(Assisted by : Parth Goswami and Mahendra Yadav, LCRAs)

C

D

E

F

G

H