Punjab CM Beant Singh Assassination | Supreme Court Seeks Intelligence Bureau Inputs On Convict's Prison Transfer Plea

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale was hearing Hawara's plea seeking transfer to a jail in Punjab, primarily to enable him to meet his elderly mother, who is stated to be in serious condition. The Court said that it would consider the request after obtaining the IB's assessment of the potential security and law-and-order implications of the transfer.

The Court observed that it could not disregard the Punjab government's objections, particularly since the case involved concerns that went beyond the individual prisoner. It said that while it was inclined to consider such requests sympathetically, it had to ensure that its order did not trigger further problems in the state. Justice Sundresh observed that the case could not be treated as an ordinary murder case because the state had raised concerns about the continuing influence of the ideology associated with the crime.

“But how do we ignore the objection of the Punjab state?...The larger problem is still alive. It is not that he has got a grievance. It's not a simple case of 302. That A killing B, B killing C, no problem, because it goes along with the person. But it is based upon certain ideologies, certain views. And the counter by the Punjab state says that it is still alive and there's a possibility of this being again increased. That's a concern we have to satisfy”, he said.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for the Delhi government took the Court through affidavits filed by the Delhi and Punjab governments opposing the transfer. She told the Court that Hawara had six convictions and pointed to his escape from the Model Jail in Chandigarh in January 2004, when he and other convicts dug a tunnel to abscond.

Bhati submitted that a proposal to transfer Hawara from Delhi to Punjab had earlier been forwarded to the Delhi government's Home Department but was rejected by the competent authority. She also referred to his previous unsuccessful attempt before the High Court to seek a transfer to another prison in Punjab and submitted that his conduct in jail had resulted in three punishments.

The ASG further relied on a Ministry of Home Affairs advisory concerning the transfer of high-risk prisoners between states. She submitted that the advisory provides for consultation with intelligence agencies before such transfers, and such transfers should be avoided where the agencies provided adverse inputs.

Referring to the Punjab government's affidavit filed in January 2025, Bhati submitted that confidential reports from central and state agencies had recommended against Hawara's transfer. The agencies had expressed apprehension that the transfer could affect peace, communal harmony and law and order, and increase the risk of escape with the assistance of his associates, she said.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves for Hawara disputed the objections and urged the Court to consider the circumstances of the case and the passage of time. He highlighted that Hawara had spent approximately 31 years in prison and the events in question had occurred decades ago against the backdrop of significant social upheaval.

Gonsalves highlighted the backdrop of the assassination of Beant Singh in August 1995, referring to Operation Blue Star in June 1984 and the anti-Sikh violence in Delhi in October 1984. He also sought to draw the Court's attention to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's 2010 judgment commuting Hawara's death sentence to imprisonment for life, arguing that the judgment contained circumstances relevant to assessing his case.

Gonsalves submitted that Hawara's past conduct should not weigh against him, contending that the earlier incidents were being relied upon without sufficient regard to the passage of time. He stressed that the proposed transfer was not a request for release from prison but merely for relocation to a high-security prison in Punjab, where Hawara could meet his 82-year-old mother.

Gonsalves also referred to a recent letter written by the Punjab Chief Minister in relation to parole, arguing that it was relevant to the question of allowing Hawara to be closer to his family. He maintained that his client had not lost his human spirit despite spending decades in prison.

Justice Sundresh acknowledged the humanitarian aspect of the request but stressed that the question could not be decided solely on that basis. He observed that the Court had to give due weight to the views of the states concerned and assess the concerns about the wider consequences of the transfer.

He said that the Court was generally inclined to consider parole and other forms of relief favourably, irrespective of the nature of the offence. He shared that as a judge of the Madras High Court, he had granted parole to about 30 to 40 prisoners accused in a major bomb-blast case despite objections of the prosecutor. He said that allowing prisoners to meet their families could have a positive impact on them.

“But then, despite the objection, I gave parole. All of them came back. Then there was completely, they were transformed persons. In the sense that they become mellowed down thereafter. Because they were able to meet their families. Some of them were able to meet their grandchildren. So, there is some hope”, he noted.

However, he said that Hawara's case raised a distinct concern because the apprehensions expressed by Punjab went beyond the prisoner's individual conduct. He said that the Court had to consider the possible consequences for society and ensure that its order did not trigger further problems in Punjab.

“There is no difficulty on this. But the only difficulty here is that, you know, you should not trigger something. That's the only concern. Individually, we have no difficulty. Even for parole also. Even before also, we always, whatever be the nature of the offense, we always tend to give parole. As a top court, we have to lean in favour of men and every sinner has a future. We have to look at it and we have to look at it positively what happened a long time back. See, like somebody said, if you kill a single individual person, you are a murderer. If you kill a thousand person, you are a conqueror. That's the difference. Only perception then. But then we have to look at the implication that will happen, that will likely be caused on the society. There we need to be careful. We should not trigger something more. That's our concern”, he said.

He distinguished Hawara's case on the ground that the concerns raised by Punjab related not merely to the individual prisoner but also to the possibility that he could be regarded as a hero by others, potentially triggering further consequences. Justice Sundresh said that the Court needed to be satisfied that the apprehensions expressed by the state had been adequately addressed before ordering a transfer.

“He may not do it. But if he is treated as a hero, there's a problem will come. We have no difficulty at all. He may mellow down. He may become sober. He may think that it is wrong. No problem. We can't say anything on that. But you know, what will be the trigger thereafter we can't say. That is the concern. And we are competent to foresee all these things. Anyway, we'll find out”, he said.

The Court indicated that it would obtain the IB's inputs and examine the issue further before taking a decision.

Background

Hawara was convicted in connection with the assassination of Beant Singh and 16 others in a bomb blast in Chandigarh in 1995. In July 2007, he was sentenced to death by the trial court. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld his conviction in October 2010 but commuted his death sentence to imprisonment for life, with the sentence to last for the remainder of his life. Appeals against the High Court judgment remain pending before the Supreme Court.

During his incarceration at Budhail Jail in Chandigarh, Hawara escaped in January 2004 after digging a tunnel. He was arrested in Delhi in 2005 in another case and subsequently lodged at Tihar Jail.

In 2018, Hawara approached the Delhi High Court seeking transfer to another prison, but the plea was dismissed on July 23, 2018.

The Supreme Court issued notice on his present transfer plea on September 27, 2024.