Salem entitled to freedom in Nov 2030, govt tells SC
from Portugal.
“It is respectfully submitted that the Government of India is bound by the assurance dated December 17, 2002. The period of 25 years, which is mentioned in the assurance, will be abided by the Union of India at an appropriate time subject to the remedies which may be available,” stated the affidavit.
It added: “The compliance of the assurances will be done at an appropriate time and the Government of India will abide by the assurances in accordance with the law and subject to the remedies as may be available at that stage.” After serving 25 years in prison, it is understood, Salem’s release will have to be ratified by the President on a recommendation to be made by the central government, based on the 2002 assurance to the Portugal government. While the assurance still holds water, Bhalla pointed out, Salem is yet to complete 25 years of incarceration and that the period will get over only on November 10, 2030.
Therefore, the home secretary added, Salem cannot be permitted to raise arguments based on the said assurance in his appeal against conviction and life term in the Mumbai serial bomb blast case.
“The contention of petitioner (Salem) about non-compliance of assurance is premature and based on hypothetical surmises and can never be raised in present proceedings...the attempt of the convict-appellant to club hat assurance with merits of the present case is legally untenable,” maintained Bhalla.
The home secretary also emphasised that a diplomatic assurance to a foreign country can only bind the executive but the judiciary is independent in deciding all cases in accordance with the applicable laws without in any way being bound by any position taken by the executive.
The Mumbai serial blasts, he said, was “undoubtedly a dastardly act conducted with premeditation in which the convictappellant played a very active role” and thus, the trial court handed out life sentence.
Bhalla said that the Supreme Court should rather decide Salem’s appeal against his conviction in the blast case on merit, snubbing his attempts to argue a point which is immaterial to deciding the case at hand.
The bench, which had on April 12 gave Bhalla “the last opportunity” to file his response, will consider this affidavit on April 21. On March 8, the court pulled up the central government for being “evasive” while demanding a personal affidavit from Bhalla to clarify the Centre’s stand regarding Salem’s length of incarceration.
The court had then rejected the affidavit filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which emphasised that an Indian court is not bound by Advani’s assurance that Salem would neither be sent to the gallows nor imprisoned beyond 25 years after his extradition to India, pointing out it is for the Union government to come clear on the diplomatic assurance given to Portugal.
Salem is currently serving life terms in two separate cases relating to the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts and the murder of Mumbai businessman Pradeep Jain in 1995.
The bench, which had on April 12 given Union home secretary last chance to file his response, will consider this affidavit on April 21
THE COURT REJECTED THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE CBI WHICH EMPHASISED THAT AN INDIAN COURT IS NOT BOUND BY ADVANI’S ASSURANCE THAT SALEM WOULD NEITHER BE SENT TO THE GALLOWS NOR IMPRISONED BEYOND 25 YEARS AFTER HIS EXTRADITION TO INDIA