Supreme Court gives the Centre a last two weeks on Rajoana's mercy plea

Who: Balwant Singh Rajoana, a former Punjab Police constable sentenced to death by a special court in July 2007 for the 1995 bombing outside the Chandigarh Civil Secretariat that killed Chief Minister Beant Singh and others. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi heard the case on April 22, 2026. Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Rajoana, and the Union government was the respondent.

What: The SGPC filed a mercy petition for Rajoana under Article 72 in March 2012 and it remains undecided. Rajoana asked the Supreme Court to commute his sentence to life because of the delay. On April 22 the bench asked why the Centre had not filed its counter-affidavit. The Centre's counsel said it wanted to place documents in a sealed cover. The bench ordered a reply within two weeks and said no more time would be given, adding that otherwise Rajoana's allegations would stand uncontested. The Home Ministry had argued that the petition could not be considered because the SGPC, not Rajoana, filed it, and that a decision should wait for other convicts' appeals, citing security and law and order. Earlier steps: on May 3, 2023 the Court refused to commute the sentence and told the Centre to decide the plea. On November 18, 2024 it asked the President's Secretariat to decide within two weeks, then put that on hold at the Solicitor General's request. On January 20, 2025 a bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai gave the Centre a last chance, with a March 18, 2025 deadline. A September 24, 2025 order said further adjournment requests would not be entertained. On October 7, 2026 the Court listed the plea for October 28, 2026.

Where: The Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. Rajoana is held in a Punjab jail.

Why it mattered: Rajoana has spent more than 29 years in custody, over 15 of them on death row, and his plea has waited about 14 years. The case tests whether delay by the state in deciding a mercy petition can itself justify commutation. The Court's repeated warnings have not produced a decision in the reports we opened.