"Attempts to lecture the judiciary:" Supreme Court takes objection to Home Secretary affidavit in Abu Salem plea

The Supreme Court on Thursday took a stern view of an affidavit filed by the Union Home Secretary in response to the plea filed by 1993 Bombay blasts convict Abu Salem claiming that the 2017 judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment was against the terms of an extradition treaty [Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra]..A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh noted that the affidavit was completely superfluous and attempted to lecture the judiciary."Home Secretary seems to tell us we should decide the appeal. It is not for him to tell us. Please understand this. What we have to do, we will do. He should not be telling us after two opportunities to file the affidavit. I don't take it very kindly," Justice Kaul said..The affidavit came in response to a direction of the Supreme Court seeking the Central government's stand on the assurance given by the Indian government to the Government of Portugal that if Salem was extradited for facing trial in India, he would neither be given the death penalty nor be subjected to imprisonment for a term beyond 25 years.The Central government informed the Supreme Court that it was bound by the assurance it gave to Portugal and would abide by it at an appropriate time, but the plea by Salem was premature. “The contention of petitioner about the non-compliance of assurance is premature and based on hypothetical surmises and can never be raised in present proceedings,” the Centre had submitted.It was the government’s stand that Salem's attempt to club the merits of the case with the assurance was legally untenable. The affidavit stated,“...it is the respectful submission of the Central Government that this Hon’ble Court may decide the appeal on merits.".The Bench took objection to the tenor of the affidavit, wherein it was stated that the Court may decide the case on merits. "As to what this Court has to do or not, is for the Court to decide," the Bench said in response.The Court remarked that it did not reflect well on the highest level of government that after taking so many opportunities, it was still not able to take a stand it was duty-bound to take..Responding to the argument of the Central government that the assurance given that Salem would not be imprisoned for more than 25 years would be of consequence when the period expires in 2030, the Court said that the stand must be taken today.It was stressed that the appeal was being decided now and could not be postponed simply because the Centre did not wish to argue on merits. "We will debate this point...Nobody is preventing you to take this stand, but we are not postponing the issue," Justice Kaul said..The Court rejected the argument that the commitment between two countries could not be decided based on one accused."We cannot postpone. Nor is it for the government to say that the appellant cannot raise the argument. As a convict, he is certainly entitled to raise this issue for the judiciary to consider it's effect," recorded the Bench.The apex court underscored that the plea was neither premature nor based on hypothetical surmises, as was claimed by the Centre..On considering the submissions of both parties, it was decided that the Court will, on the next date, hear the parties' arguments on the following two issues: - First, on the jurisdiction exercised by the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) Court in granting a sentence beyond 25 years. - Second, on the issue of the "set off" period, specifically whether the same would arise from the incarceration before the Portugal court or independently seen. .With these observations, the matter was listed on May 5..[Read a live account of the hearing here]