The Supreme Court, in its judgment on a petition filed by gangster Abu Salem challenging the life sentence in the 1993 Mumbai blasts, said it cannot reduce the period of his sentence. Salem had filed a petition on the ground that his sentence could not exceed 25 years, which was given under a solemn assurance India Portugal in 2002 for his extradition.
“The punishment cannot be more or less than the proportion,” the bench said. Should act as a deterrent and give a sense of justice to the families. The government could not have said that we would not consider the issue. The separation of powers cannot compel the courts to carry out treaties.”
Salem, convicted of the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, was extradited from Portugal on November 11, 2005, after a protracted legal battle. In June 2017, Salem was convicted and later given life imprisonment for his role in the 1993 serial blasts case in Mumbai that killed 257 people and seriously injured 713. and destroyed property worth crores.
While deciding that Salem’s period of service in Portugal cannot be considered, the bench said, “We are unable to consider the review rendered by the counsel for the appellant. The criminal law of the land does not have additional territorial application.” “
The top court had on May 5 reserved its verdict in the case in which the Center argued that the judiciary was independent of the serious sovereign assurances given to the Portuguese government during Salem’s extradition in 2002 and it was up to the executive to decide on a A call on that at the appropriate level.
Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj, appearing for the Centre, told the court that “the government is bound by the sincere assurance given by the then Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani to the Portuguese government and it will abide by it in due course.”
He had argued that the court was not bound by solemn assurances and it could pass orders in accordance with law. “Serious sovereign assurance cannot be imposed on the judiciary. The executive will take action on this at the appropriate level. We are bound by solemn sovereign assurances in this regard. The judiciary is independent, it can proceed according to the law,” he had said.
The bench had told Natraj that the plea of advocate Rishi Malhotra, representing Salem, was that the court should decide on serious assurance and reduce his sentence from life imprisonment to 25 years or direct the government to grant him a bail during his tenure. Decide on the assurance given. extradition
The top court had observed that the second issue was of a stipulated period as it was contended in the bar that Salem was arrested in Portugal following a red corner notice issued on the orders of the court here and has been placed under house arrest there. Till his extradition to India.
Nataraja argued that there are judgments to the effect that life imprisonment means whole life and there can be no exemption. Malhotra had argued that the assurance was in clear words that if extradited by Portugal for trial in India, Salem would be punished with death or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 25 years.
read all breaking news, today’s fresh newswatch top videos And live TV Here.