In its decision on gangster Abu Salem’s petition challenging his life sentence for the 1993 Mumbai bombings, the Supreme Court ruled that it could not commute the terms of his sentence. Salem had submitted a petition, arguing that a solemn guarantee for his extradition from India to Portugal in 2002 stated that his sentence could not exceed 25 years.
The bench ruled that after Abu Salem has served out his 25-year sentence for the 1993 Mumbai bombings, the centre must honour its promise to Portugal and free the gangster.
The bench ruled that after Abu Salem has served out his 25-year sentence for the 1993 Mumbai bombings, the Center must honour its promise to Portugal and free the gangster.
The Central Government Must Advise The President Of India For Exercise Of Power Under Article 72 Of The Constitution And The National Commitment On Completion Of His Sentence, According To A Bench Of Justices S K Kaul And M M Sundresh.
“Within one month of reaching 25 years, the required papers must be sent. After serving 25 years, the government can actually exercise its own remission authority under the CrPC within a month, the bench ruled.
Salem was sentenced to life in prison on February 25, 2015, in a separate case for the 1995 slayings of Mumbai-based builder Pradeep Jain and his driver Mehndi Hassan. After a protracted legal battle, Salem, a prisoner for the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, was extradited from Portugal on November 11, 2005.
Salem was found guilty in June 2017 and given a life sentence for his part in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case, which resulted in 257 fatalities, 713 serious injuries, and the destruction of properties worth millions of rupees.
The bench declared that the time Salem spent in Portugal could not be taken into consideration and added, “We are unable to consider the review proposed by counsel for Appellant. The criminal law of the land does not extend beyond its immediate jurisdiction.
The top court had on May 5 reserved its decision in the case, in which the Center had argued that the executive should make a decision at the proper time regarding the judiciary’s independence from the solemn sovereign assurance given to the Portugal government during Salem’s extradition in 2002.
According to Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, who represented the Centre in court, “the government is bound by the solemn sovereign assurance given by then deputy Prime Minister L K Advani to the Portugal government and it will abide by it at an appropriate time.”
He had argued that the court was not constrained by the solemn assurance and could make decisions in accordance with the law.
“The judiciary cannot be forced to give a solemn sovereign assurance. At the proper time, the Executive will take appropriate action. In this regard, we are obligated by the solemn sovereign assurance. He had stated that the judiciary was independent and could operate according to the law.
The court should decide on the solemn assurance and reduce Salem’s sentence from life to 25 years, the bench had informed Nataraj. Alternatively, the court could order the government to decide whether to rely on the assurance given during Salem’s extradition.