The Supreme Court of India has recently questioned the central government regarding the prolonged delay in the execution of Balwant Singh Rajoana, who was convicted for the assassination of former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh in 1995. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria raised concerns about the matter, remarking, "Why did you not hang him till now? Who is to blame for that? At least, we have not stayed the execution".

Rajoana's case has been a subject of legal and political debate for many years. He was sentenced to death in 2007 by a special court for his involvement in the bomb blast that killed Beant Singh and 16 others in Chandigarh. While Rajoana did not appeal his conviction, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) filed a mercy petition on his behalf in 2012, which has remained pending since then.

The Supreme Court's recent questioning stems from Rajoana's plea seeking commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the excessive delay in deciding on his mercy petition. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Rajoana, argued that the delay itself warrants commutation, stating that his client has been on death row for 15 years, sometimes in solitary confinement, and his mental state is uncertain.

The central government, represented by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, acknowledged the gravity of the offense but sought time to provide an update on the status of the mercy petition. The court has scheduled the next hearing for October 15, making it clear that no further adjournments will be granted at the Centre's request.

Several factors contribute to the delay in Rajoana's execution. The primary reason is the pending mercy petition, which has been under consideration for over a decade. The government has repeatedly cited the sensitivity of the matter, particularly the potential implications for national security and law and order, as justification for the delay.

In the past, the Supreme Court has refrained from interfering in the government's decision-making process regarding the mercy petition, recognizing it as an executive function. However, the court has also emphasized the importance of timely decisions in such matters, considering the prolonged incarceration and mental anguish faced by death row convicts.

Another factor is the pendency of appeals by other convicts in the Beant Singh assassination case. The CBI had approached the Supreme Court in Jagtar Singh Hawara's case because his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. The appeals of other convicts are also pending.

The Supreme Court's recent stance suggests a growing impatience with the continued delay in Rajoana's case. The court appears keen on ensuring that the executive fulfills its responsibility in a timely manner, particularly when fundamental rights and human dignity are at stake. The court has given the Central government an ultimatum to decide on the mercy petition.

The case has seen twists and turns over the years. In 2019, the Centre decided to commute Rajoana’s death penalty to a life sentence on the occasion of Guru Nanak Dev’s 550th birth anniversary, but this decision is yet to be implemented. In 2023, the Supreme Court refused to commute his death sentence and said the competent authority could deal with his mercy plea.

The Supreme Court's intervention underscores the complexities and sensitivities surrounding cases involving terrorism, political assassinations, and the death penalty. The court's observations reflect a delicate balancing act between upholding the rule of law, respecting executive authority, and safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals, even those convicted of heinous crimes.