The Supreme Court told the Centre on Thursday that the government cannot “humming and hawing” over its solemn commitment to Portugal that mobster Abu Salem will not be sentenced to more than 25 years in jail or face the death penalty. The government must now take an “unambiguous stand” on whether it will honor the commitment made to Portugal, according to the court.
A Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul expressed displeasure with certain parts of an affidavit filed by Union Home Secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla, which stated that 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 taking into account any “assurance” given by India to Portugal.
Mr. Bhalla had informed the court that discussing the assurance made in 2002 was “premature” at this time and that the “proper moment” to do so would be in 2030 when the 25-year period comes to an end. When the issue of compliance with the guarantee arose in 2030, the Home Secretary told the court that “remedies available” would be considered.
The Supreme court decided that the “proper time” to examine the guarantee
The Supreme court, however, decided that the “proper time” to examine the guarantee was “right now,” when Salem’s appeal against his conviction and life sentence was still proceeding. “Today, we must determine whether to uphold his conviction and sentence to life in prison… The government must now take action in this regard…” K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General, was addressed by Justice Kaul.
The Supreme court stated that it will have to consider in the appeal whether Salem’s 25-year period began on the day he was apprehended in Portugal. “Now is the time to make a decision on everything.” Now is the time for you to make a decision. You decided to extradite him from Portugal through the legal system. You promised that he would be extradited… Then what good is it to say, “We’ll consider it when the time comes, subject to whatever remedies that may be available at the time”? Justice Kaul was the one who inquired.
Mr. Bhalla’s declaration was dismissed by the Supreme court because it “essentially lectures us on what we should or should not do.” “We don’t need the Home Secretary to tell us what we should or shouldn’t do… “Some of the affidavit’s sections are absolutely worthless,” Justice Kaul noted. The matter will be heard on May 5th, according to the court.