CASE BRIEF: KEHAR SINGH & ORS v. STATE (DELHI ADMN.)

 

CASE NAME	Kehar Singh & Ors V. State (Delhi Admn.), (1988) 3 SCC 609
CITATION	1988 AIR 1883, 1988 SCR SUPL. (2) 24, 1988 (17) IJR (SC) 306, 1988 CRIAPPR(SC) 311, 1988 CALCRILR 146, 1988 SCC(CRI) 711, 1988 (3) JT 191, 1988 BLJR 630
COURT	The Supreme Court of India.
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice  G.L. Oza, Justice B.C. Ray and Justice K.J. Shetty
PETITIONERS	Kehar Singh & Ors.
RESPONDENT	State (Delhi admn.)
DECIDED ON	decided on 3rd August, 1988

INTRODUCTION

The case Kehar Singh and Ors. v State (Delhi Admn.) is widely recognized as the “assassination case” of Indira Gandhi. India's prime minister, Indira Gandhi, held the position from 1966 to 1977 and from 1980 to 1984. Indira Gandhi was assassinated on October 31, 1984, by her Sikh security advisors. India had riots following the assassination of Indira Gandhi, and Sikhs were heavily targeted for retaliatory attacks that resulted in their deaths in large numbers. At the time, this case was the most talked-about subject and attracted national and international interest. The news of Indira Gandhi's killing spread widely in the West and soon attracted interest from beyond.  The accused in this case received a death sentence because the courts deemed it to be the rarest of rare occurrences. Indira Gandhi proposed Operation Blue Star as a means of bringing peace to the continuing conflicts in Punjab. It was discovered that the terrorists had machine guns and other potent weaponry when they established their headquarters at the Harmandir Sahib compound. This prompted the Indian Army to raid the sacred site in order to apprehend the infamous armed insurgents. Numerous individuals were slain, and the properties were completely destroyed once the Indian army entered the area. There was also damage to the Akal Takht. This is a famous case of Indira Gandhi's assassination case.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Indian Army launched Operation Bluestar in June 1984 to destroy certain terrorists who were holed up in the Golden Temple compound. The Indian Army devised a well-thought-out plan to do this, which included entering the temple complex area and apprehending the armed terrorists. On the other hand, the operation claimed several civilian lives and damaged property. After Operation Bluestar was over, the Akal Takht was also devastated. This inflicted emotional harm on Sikh community members. Since it offended their religious sensibilities, they blamed Smt. Indira Gandhi for the incident.  Sikhs organized protests against Smt. Indira Gandhi was the one who gave the orders to carry out this operation, therefore people openly vented their rage and hatred at her. Sub-inspectors Balbir Singh and Beant Singh, as well as Delhi Police constable Satwant Singh, were assigned to security duties in the Prime Minister's office. Kehar Singh was employed as an assistant at the Directorate General of Supply and Disposal in New Delhi. These individuals were Sikhs by faith, and following Operation Bluestar, they publicly voiced their resentment for Smt.  Smt. Indira Gandhi spoke with Peter Ustinov of Irish television on October 31, 1984. Smt. Indira Gandhi emerged from her home at approximately 9:10 A.M. accompanied by her security advisors, bodyguards, and corresponding assistants. Head Constable Narayan Singh, Assistant Sub-inspector Rameshwar Dayal, attendant Nathuram, and Special Assistant R.K. Dhawan trailed behind her. Beant Singh and Satwant Singh were aware of Smt. Indira Gandhi's itinerary in advance, thus they knew she would pass via the TMC gate. In order to ensure that Beant Singh would be at the TMC Gate and Satwant Singh would be at the TMC sentry booth, they attempted to juggle their duty schedules. Together, Beant Singh and Satwant Singh positioned themselves close to the TMC Gate in order to advance their shared objectives. As Indira Gandhi neared the TMC Gate, Beant Singh and Satwant Singh fired five and twenty-five shots at her, respectively. After being taken to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, she passed away from her wounds. Following Operation Bluestar, Kehar Singh was deeply angered that numerous civilians also had to pay the price for the operation's destruction of the Akal Takht. Kehar Singh filled his friends' and his nephew Beant Singh's minds with hatred as a result. He was the scheme's creator and was responsible for inciting opposition to Smt. Indira Gandhi, through various religious speeches, protests, and rallies held by him.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the President may consider a case on its merits under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution even when the court has already rendered a decision in the matter. 
• If judicial review of the President's pardoning authority is applicable, 
• Does the High Court have the authority to assign a certain case to a specific Session Judge? 

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument from the side of the appellant

• The appellant side contended that the trial's holding in Tihar Jail breaches the right to a prompt, open, and public trial as granted by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and that the CRPC's Section 327 outlines the process for holding such a trial.  
• The appeal side further contended that the trial court's rules dictating how the press and media might enter Tihar Jail will be controlled by the jail administration, demonstrating that this is a limited trial rather than an open or public trial. 
• It was contended that Satwant Singh's confession was not documented in accordance with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it cannot be utilized to find the accused guilty. 
• It was asserted that there was no proof that Kehar Singh had accompanied Beant Singh and his wife specifically to expose them to speeches and protests critical of Smt. Indira Gandhi, who was the prime minister at the time. 
• Additionally, it was claimed that Kehar Singh, an old, devout Sikh, was attempting to stop Beant Singh from acting negatively toward Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi.

Arguments from the side of the respondent

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution does not include a constitutional right requiring an open and public trial. Only the legal process outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 327, is stated in Article 21. The laws governing the process are amendable, which means that in the future, the laws governing open and public trials may also be modified. It is not recognized as a right guaranteed by the Constitution. 
• A witness questioned before the panel is protected, and his remarks cannot be used against him in any other proceedings—civil or criminal—according to Section 6 of the Panel of Inquiry Act. 
• A trial must be free and open per Section 327 of the Code. Any location that is accessible to regular people is considered an open space. Thus, the trial was not subject to any limitations by the Court. 
• The High Court has the authority to designate the trial court's judge in accordance with Section 194 of the CRPC. The segment is regular and easy to understand.

JUDGMENT

The accused, Balwant Singh, was found not guilty by the court because there was insufficient evidence to support his claim that he had any criminal intention20 to participate in the plot. Because of their prearranged plot, the other two suspects, Beant Singh and Satwant Singh, were accountable for the prime minister's murder. The appeals of Kehar Singh and Satwant Singh were rejected because there was insufficient proof to back up their claims. The death penalty imposed by the trial court and the High Court was affirmed by the Indian Supreme Court after a post-mortem study revealed that the prime minister passed away from shock and bleeding from gunshot wounds sustained by the primary offender.  As the High Court appropriately confirmed, the accused is found guilty under Section-30221 of the Indian Penal Code with reference to criminal conspiracy (section 120B22) and furtherance of common intention (section 34).23The death penalty had previously been justified in this section. The court found no alternative justification for pardoning the guilty for their horrific crimes.

CONCLUSION

In the 1980s, the Indian judiciary observed and rendered a decision in one of the most significant cases. In addition to serving as India's prime minister, Indira Gandhi was also a leader duly elected by a vast number of people. She was brutally killed by those tasked with defending her because of a decision she made while acting in accordance with her constitutional rights.  It is possible to argue that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional provisions and the legitimacy of the rights they protected in this case, so justice was delivered. One of the most important instances in the Indian judiciary's history is the killing of Indira Gandhi. It was her own securities betraying the worst kind of order. This case garnered attention on a global scale and continues to be a hot topic years after it was first reported. This case is among the very few that resulted in the death penalty being applied to each and every accused person. Mrs. Indira Gandhi suffered the repercussions of her choice. She was brutally murdered by the bodyguards who had a duty to protect her. Their boldness has never been matched. This case will always be remembered in our minds.  The Supreme Court ruling is accurate and strictly adheres to the "Rule of law" concept. In addition to relying on circumstantial evidence, the court verified its findings using testimony from additional witnesses and the postmortem report at hand. It has correctly outlined the constitutional defenses of the natural justice principle with reference to the concerns brought forth by both sides in court. The heinousness of the act perpetrated here was confirmed by the widespread condemnation and attention it received on a global scale. Every leader is responsible for upholding their country's security and sovereignty, and the prime minister carried out her official duties while conducting Operation Blue Star to avoid offending anyone.  The Supreme Court, which has demonstrated its competence in carrying out its mandate, was required to prevent such religiously motivated radicalism in our forward-thinking country. The security officers tasked with defending the prime minister's life at great personal risk had the gall to shoot an unarmed victim in such a savage manner. Since the act's gruesome nature has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, this verdict makes history by providing justice for the cause.