Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
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.
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.
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 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, 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 BALWANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [VIKRAM NATH, J.] 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.
18. We may also record here that the three decisions relied upon 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.
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 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.
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.
21. It is, however, directed that the competent authority, in due 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. Ankit Gyan Writ Petition disposed of. (Assisted by : Parth Goswami and Mahendra Yadav, LCRAs) BALWANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [VIKRAM NATH, J.]