Balwant Singh Rajoana Death Row: Can SC Give Orders To President? Constitutional Powers Explained
The Supreme Court is vested with the power to interpret the Constitution and safeguard fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court on Monday, November 18, urged President Droupadi Murmu to make a decision on the mercy petition of Balwant Singh Rajoana within two weeks. Rajoana, who was convicted in the 1995 assassination of Punjab’s then-Chief Minister Beant Singh, has been on death row for nearly 28 years. The case sparked widespread debate, particularly regarding the prolonged delay in addressing Rajoana’s mercy petition, which has been pending with the President since 2012.
This direction from the Supreme Court has raised an important question: Can the apex court issue such instructions to the President, and what does the Constitution say about the interaction between the highest judiciary and the office of the President?
related stories
The Case of Balwant Singh Rajoana
Balwant Singh Rajoana was sentenced to death in 2007 for his role in a bomb blast outside the Punjab Civil Secretariat in 1995, which killed Chief Minister Beant Singh and 16 others. Although Rajoana has been on death row for almost three decades, his mercy petition remained unresolved, despite the Centre’s indication in 2019 that it would spare his life, in recognition of the 550th birth anniversary of Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji.
On Monday, the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the Centre’s lack of action on the matter, particularly since the government had previously indicated that it would review Rajoana’s sentence. The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and KV Vishwanathan, criticised the absence of any representation from the Centre during the proceedings. The apex court directed the Secretary to the President to place Rajoana’s petition before President Murmu for consideration.
The Court set a deadline of two weeks for a decision on the petition, with further hearings scheduled for December 5. The judges emphasised the urgency of the matter, noting the extended delay and the fact that Rajoana’s life was hanging in the balance. This was a significant move by the SC, which, in previous hearings, had asked the Centre to clarify when a decision would be taken, given the petition’s long pendency.
Constitutional Context: The President and the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s recent direction raised a crucial constitutional question: Does the apex court have the authority to issue such a directive to the President? To understand this, it’s essential to look at the Constitution, particularly the provisions that govern the relationship between the judiciary and the executive.
Article 143: Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court
Article 143 of the Constitution gives the President the power to seek the advice of the Supreme Court on any matter of law or fact that is of public importance or has national significance. This can happen when the President deems it necessary to resolve a legal question. However, it is important to note that the advice provided by the Supreme Court under Article 143 is not binding on the President. The President may choose to accept or ignore the SC’s advice.
While this provision allows for consultation, it does not establish a direct line of authority between the SC and the President. The Supreme Court’s advice is advisory, not mandatory.
The Role of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is vested with the power to interpret the Constitution and safeguard fundamental rights, making it the ultimate judicial authority in the country. It functions not only as the final court of appeal but also as a body that can issue advisory opinions on matters referred to it by the President. The SC’s role, while influential, does not extend to overriding the discretion of the President in matters such as pardons or mercy petitions.
The case of Balwant Singh Rajoana raises questions about the extent to which the judiciary can influence decisions traditionally within the executive’s purview. While the SC cannot directly compel the President to make a particular decision regarding a mercy petition, it can certainly express its concern over undue delays, as seen in this case.
The President’s Constitutional Powers
The President plays a significant role in the judicial system, particularly in appointments and removals of judges, but also in matters of clemency. The power to grant pardons or commute sentences is enshrined in Article 72 of the Constitution, which allows the President to exercise discretion in matters of mercy petitions, such as those of prisoners sentenced to death. However, the decision to grant or deny clemency is ultimately the President’s.
Presidential Role in Judicial Appointments
The President also holds the authority to appoint the Chief Justice and judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. However, this power is exercised in consultation with the judiciary, particularly the Chief Justice of India. The procedure for removing a judge from office, which involves a complex process of impeachment through Parliament, further ensures the independence of the judiciary from executive interference.
Can the Supreme Court Direct the President?
In the case of Rajoana, the Supreme Court did not issue a binding directive but expressed its concern over the delay and urged action from the President. The apex court’s role here is to highlight the undue delay in the mercy petition process, something that affects the rights of the individual involved. While it does not have the power to force the President’s hand, it can make recommendations, which, in this case, were directed at expediting the President’s decision.
In sum, while the Supreme Court cannot directly instruct the President on matters of clemency, it can issue directions to ensure that such matters are handled expeditiously. The interaction between the President and the judiciary is governed by the Constitution, which outlines the respective powers of both bodies. In this case, the Court’s intervention underscores its role as the guardian of justice, particularly in situations where delays in the judicial process might undermine fundamental rights.
- Location :
- First Published: