NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly objected to some remarks by Union Home Secretary in an affidavit honouring assurances to Portugal in extradition of Mumbai gangster Abu Salem, saying “we don’t need lecture” from him.”Home Secretary seems to tell us; we should decide the appeal. It is not for him to tell us,” a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh told Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj.
Justice Kaul sternly asked Nataraj to be clear on the government stand in the matter, whether it will honour the assurance made to Portugal?
The affidavit said the government will abide by its assurance to Portugal at an appropriate time. The Bench said it did not like this sentence in the affidavit. Nataraj submitted that the court should first decide when the concerned 25 years will run and then only other issues can be decided.
On the Home Secretary’s affidavit that the sovereign commitment bind the two countries, but Salem cannot claim its benefit as a matter of right.
At this, Justice Kaul said: “It means you don’t want to take a stand. The government must be unequivocal in what it wants to say.” He stressed: “Are you sticking to assurance? No lecturing required by the Home Secretary.”
The top court was hearing a plea by Abu Salem stating that his imprisonment cannot extend beyond 25 years, as per the assurances given by the Indian government to Portugal during his extradition. As Nataraj said Abu Salem’s rights, conviction etc is up to the judiciary and as far as the assurance given, it is between two countries, the bench replied: “We asked you if you are standing by the assurance. You are saying that the consideration is premature. How can you say it’s premature? The appeal is right for arguing…”.
The bench added that the government took a decision to bring him to India by giving an assurance through a court process. “This court has to be conscious of the fact that in your wisdom you have given an assurance. I don’t understand what the other remedies are,” it said.
The Central government had contended that Salem’s contention about the non-compliance of assurance is premature and based on hypothetical surmises and can never be raised in present proceedings.
