Only in the year 2030 will the problem of upholding India’s commitment to Portugal when extraditing gangster Abu Salem that he will not be sentenced to death or life in prison for the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts arise.
Salem, who was represented by lawyer Rishi Malhotra, was extradited from Portugal after India promised on December 17, 2002, that he would not face the death penalty or a sentence of more than 25 years in India. Only in the year 2030 will the problem of upholding India’s commitment to Portugal when extraditing gangster Abu Salem that he will not be sentenced to death or life in prison for the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts arise.
Salem one of the accused in the 1993 Mumbai Serial blasts
Salem, who was represented by counsel Rishi Malhotra, was extradited from Portugal after India promised on December 17, 2002, that he would not face the death penalty or a sentence of more than 25 years in prison in India. It recognized that an “executive promise” was provided by one country to another in the exercise of its executive duties not to condemn Salem to death or imprisonment for more than 25 years.
He was found guilty and sentenced following a lengthy trial, according to the government. He was found guilty in a court of “major terrorist acts” that resulted in “serial bombings at strategic locations in Mumbai.” The bombings were “unquestionably a wicked act committed with premeditation in which the appellant (Salem) played a very active role,” according to the court.
He was an absconder who was extradited to India in 2002 under the Extradition Act. The international convention for the prevention of terrorist bombings has India and Portugal as signatories.
The Supreme Court was concerned about the “international implications” that India would suffer if it was seen to break “solemn” agreements given to foreign governments in exchange for extradition. Salem was apprehended and extradited to India from Portugal. He said that L.K. Advani, the then-Deputy Prime Minister, and Home Minister had given Portugal the “solemn sovereign assurance.”
In a recent affidavit, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) stated that Mr. Advani’s assurance was not a guarantee.
“The solemn sovereign promise offered by India’s then Deputy Prime Minister cannot be regarded as a guarantee/undertaking that no Indian court would award the accused Abu Salem the punishment prescribed by Indian laws in force… “The appellant’s (Salem’s) position that the sentence cannot be extended beyond 25 years based on the guarantee made is legally untenable,” the CBI had argued in the Supreme Court.