The government cannot “hum and haw” over its solemn assurance to Portugal that gangster Abu Salem will not be sentenced to a prison term over 25 years or face death penalty, the Supreme Court told the Centre on Thursday. The government has to take an “unequivocal stand” now on whether it would abide by the assurance given to Portugal or not, the court said.
A Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul expressed its displeasure over certain portions of an affidavit filed by Union Home Secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla, which said the court should focus on deciding Salem’s appeal against his conviction and life sentence in the 1993 Mumbai blasts case on its merits rather than take into consideration any “assurance” given by India to Portugal.
Mr. Bhalla had told the court that it was “premature” now to discuss the assurance given in 2002, and the “appropriate time” to do so would be in 2030 when the end of the 25-year period comes up. The Home Secretary had told the court that the question of complying with the assurance would be examined when it arises in 2030 subject to “remedies available”.
But the court said the “appropriate time” to discuss the assurance was “right now” when Salem’s appeal against his conviction and life sentence was pending before it. “Today, we have to decide whether to confirm his conviction and life sentence... For that, the government has to take a stand now...” Justice Kaul addressed Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj.
The court said it had to also decide in the appeal whether Salem’s 25-year period started from the very day he was taken into custody in Portugal. “All this has to be decided now. You have to take a stand now. You took a decision to extradite him from Portugal through a court process. For his extradition, you gave an assurance... Then what is the point of saying ‘we will think about it at the appropriate time and subject to remedies available then’?” Justice Kaul asked.
The court took stern exception to Mr. Bhalla’s affidavit, saying it “virtually lectures us on what we should or not do”. “The Home Secretary is no one to tell us what we should or not do... Some portions of the affidavit are completely meaningless,” Justice Kaul observed.
The court scheduled the case for May 5.
