Explainer: Why is Balwant Rajoana’s mercy petition hanging fire?

Convicted of assassinating the then Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh in 1995, Balwant Singh Rajoana has been in jail for more than 28 years, awaiting his execution since 2006 when the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty awarded to him.

His mercy petition has been hanging fire for the last 12 years as the President failed to take a call on it.

Under Article 72 of the Constitution, the President has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence. However, there is no limitation of time within which the power under Article 72 may be exercised.

However, Rajaona is not the only death row convict whose mercy petition is pending before the President. The Ministry of Home Affairs had in February 2022 informed the Lok Sabha that four mercy petitions are pending under article 72 of the Constitution of India – one each filed in 2012 and 2015 and two filed in 2021.

Reasons for delay

Firstly, Rajaona’s mercy petition was filed by the SGPC and not by the convict himself. The Centre had taken exception to it and said that it can’t be decided until the appeals of other convicts were decided by the top court.  Even the Supreme Court took note of it in May 2023 when it rejected his plea for commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment.

Secondly, in view of the prevailing situation, the MHA had been of the view that it would be appropriate to defer any decision on the mercy petition as it could potentially compromise national security and create a law and order situation in Punjab – which faced militancy for decades.

Thirdly, the MHA maintained that Rajoana did not deserve any mercy in view of his conduct as he expressed in specific terms that he had no faith in the judiciary and that he did not regret at all being part of the crime. He had also allegedly talked in contemptuous terms before the High Court which had been duly recorded.

SC rejected his plea in 2023

The top court had in May 2023 turned down his plea for commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment, saying, the MHA’s stand to defer the decision on Rajaona’s mercy petition actually amounted to “a decision declining to grant the same for the present.”

However, it had 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.”

As the President has not taken a call on his mercy plea since May 2023, Rajaona has filed a fresh plea seeking commutation of his death penalty to life imprisonment.

Convict can’t be kept waiting for the gallows

Though there is no limitation provided for under Article 72 for the President to take a decision on mercy petitions, the Supreme Court has ruled that that a convict can’t be kept waiting for the gallows and inordinate delay in his/her execution is a ground for commuting the death penalty to life sentence.

In Jagdish versus State of Madhya Pradesh (2009), the Supreme Court ruled that the government's failure to decide a mercy plea within a reasonable timeframe can be a ground for commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment. "We must…say with the greatest emphasis that human beings are not chattels (slaves) and should not be used as pawns in furthering some larger political (goal) or government policy", a Bench headed by Justice HS Bedi said.

The State’s failure in taking an expeditious decision amounted to violation of condemned prisoners' right to live with human dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, it had said.

Further, in Shatrughan Chauhan’s case (2014), the top court said, “It is well established that exercising of power under Article 72/161 by the President or the Governor is a constitutional obligation and not a mere prerogative. Considering the high status of office, the Constitutional framers did not stipulate any outer time limit for disposing the mercy petitions under the said Articles, which means it should be decided within reasonable time.