Appendix 4
Reprieve for Devender Pal Singh (Bhullar)
I
Phone: 2921 4294
Dr. Sangat Singh S-181 Greater Kailash, Part-2,
New Delhi - 110 048
Smt. Pratiba Devisingh Patil, June 20, 2011
President of India,
Rashtrapati Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 004
Reprieve for Devender Pal Singh Bhullar - Regarding
Respected Madam,
At first I should introduce myself: My work The Sikhs in History, 7th edn. 2010 has been acclaimed as the greatest work on Sikh history since the day of J. D. Cunnigham (1849). As such, the views I am expressing here may be taken as authoritative views of the Sikh community.
2. The news about your refusal to grant reprieve to Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, facing capital punishment, comes as a deep shock. One hopes in vain that people in the Government of India and Presidential set up would apply their mind to the case.
3. The first and the foremost is the split judgement of 3-member bench of the Supreme Court, which came to light on April 3, 2002 and the nature of those judgements.
a) The Presiding Judge Mr. Justice M. B. Shah held that Devender Pal Singh Bhullar was innocent, as the confessional statement recorded by Police was retracted. The independent witnesses produced by the Police were not of any help to it. The other persons, named in bomb blast against Bitta, were neither convicted nor tried, and a person cannot conspire only with himself. He regarded the case against Bhullar a bundle of lies and a charade: he acquitted him straightaway.
b) The other two judges, Mr. Justice B. N. Aggarwal and Mr. Justice Arijit Passayat betrayed the type of influences that were working on them. They openly said that they were not bothered about proof. They referred to militants attack on World Trade Centre at New York on September 11, 2001 and attack on Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001. They had before them Bhullar upholding Sikh values: so they did not apply their judicial mind to the case. What they did was nothing short of political skull-drudgery and miscarriage of justice in sentencing Bhullar to death sentence and termed it as a rarest of rare case.
4. This judgement raised furor on some TV channels over relevance of former TADA or present POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) for justice to minorities. It was contented that firstly, police in India was not an independent entity but in league with some politicians; and secondly, there was the question of nexus between politicians, criminal elements and some sections of judiciary.
5. Now, something about Mr. P. Chidambaram, Union Home Minister, through whom the papers have been put up. He was a junior Minister in Home Ministry under Buta Singh in Rajiv Gandhi Government (1984-89) when Punjab was heading towards state terrorism. He has not outgrown those days and does not necessarily reflect the view point of Smt. Sonia Gandhi, a Roman Catholic, or her son Rahul Gandhi who reflects a different approach. The state militancy was carried forward by Shri K. P. S. Gill, the then DG Police, who continued his rapacious regime despite Supreme Court's numerous damning indictments. He, however, candidly opined: “the issues like Chandigarh or river water are not the real problems… The main grudge of the Sikhs against the Hindus was the domination of Brahminical society.” With the quantum of killings he had done, thinking process of the Sikhs, he averred had now changed. (Hindustan Times December 1, 1993). THE PROJECTED JUDICIAL KILLINGS OF DEVENDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR IS TO BE SEEN IN THAT LIGHT, OF KILLING OF PEOPLE OWNING FEALTY TO SIKH FAITH.
6. If India is a secular country, and THAT IT IS A BIG IF, it shall be most appropriate for you to reconsider the matter afresh in view of the above, and grant reprieve to Bhullar, and set him free, as envisaged by the presiding judge, Mr. Justice M. B. Shah.
Yours sincerely,
(Sangat Singh)
Copies of this letter were sent to the following:
1. Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, New Delhi.
2. Rahul Gandhi, New Delhi.
3. Chairman National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi.
4. Chairman, Minorities Commission, New Delhi.
5. Honorable Ambassador, Federal Republic of Germany, Shanti Path, New Delhi.
6. Avtar Singh Makkar, President, SGPC, Amritsar.
7. Sukhdev Singh Bhaur, General Secretary, SGPC, Amritsar.
8. Paramjit Singh Sarna, President, DSGMC, New Delhi.
9. Harvinder Singh Sarna, President, SAD (Delhi), New Delhi.
(Letters to no. 8 and 9 were sent keeping in view their proximity to P.M.)
10-11. K. T. S. Tulsi, Advocate on record, New Delhi + one copy for Bhullar's mother.
12. Joginder Singh, Editor, Spokesman, Chandigarh.
13. Dalip Singh Kashmiri, Chandigarh.
14. Giani Harinder Singh, Kathakar, New Delhi.
II
None of the addressees even acknowledged my letter, except for the Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, who hoped that since I had approached a multiple of authorities, some one would come forward to look into the matter.
This was a clear indication that they wanted me to make the issue as one of violation of human rights, and delete references of political nature. Since I was still hoping for a response, especially from the P. M., (as I already had indicted the Union Home Minister), I wanted the Institute of Sikh Studies (IOSS), Chandigarh to make it simply a Human Rights issue.
I entrusted the work to one Santokh Singh, a retired IRS senior officer, to get the needful done, as I had some reservations about the persons heading the IOSS in post-Kharak Singh period. For some similar reasons, he could not get the IOSS interested in the matter. I never had any doubts about his credibility and sincerity. This led to a lot of loss of time, at my end too. I have since resumed my normal activity.
III
Phone: 2921 4294
Dr. Sangat Singh S-181 Greater Kailash, Part-2,
New Delhi - 110 048
The Chairman, March 16th, 2013
National Human Rights Commission,
Faridkot House,
Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001
Devender Pal Singh (Bhullar): Death Sentence of :
Dear Sir,
I am constrained to write to you in my capacity as author of The Sikhs in History (now 7th edn. 2010) which has been acclaimed as one of the greatest works on Sikh History, in the forward by Prof. Noel Q. King, Prof. Emeritus of History and Comparative Religions, California University, Santa Cruz, (USA). A couple of years back, I had written to the then President of India, with copies to the Prime Minister and a host of others, but got no reply, except from your end. Hence, this letter to you, as a case of violation of Human Rights.
2. On extradition from Frankfurt, Germany, Devender Pal Singh was arrested at New Delhi Indira Gandhi Airport on January 19, 1995, and subjected to a trial for a bomb blast at office of the Youth Congress President, Raisina Road, New Delhi.
3. The case went upto the Supreme Court. The Presiding Judge, JJ M. B. Shah held him to be completely innocent. He went into the mechanics of a confessional statement (since retracted), and not presented to ACMM, or even saved in the computer or floppy. The recording of the statement was flawed, in the absence of requisite certificate to be recorded by the concerned DCP. Also, the independent witnesses produced by the police contradicted Devender Pal Singh’s alleged statement. The other persons named were not convicted, nor tried, and a person cannot conspire only with himself. He, therefore, acquitted him to be released immediately, unless wanted in some other case.
4. The other two judges were JJ B. N. Aggarwal (who concurred) and JJ Arijit Passayat who wrote the judgement. They betrayed their prejudice by straight away, in the very first paragraph, (No. 28 of the judgement), referred to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and other places in USA, September 11, 2001 and attack on Parliament House in New Delhi on December 13, 2001, as if both or one of them were handiwork of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar or any of his associates. In Para 58 towards the end, they say, “when the collective conscience of the community is shocked, (it) will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their opinion…” Then, they talk of 5 stipulations for “collective conscience of community’s ire,” and then of the need for “taking an overall global views of all circumstances” which prompt them to subject themselves to popular acclaim, all the more so when they are ordering a person from a minority community to be sent to gallows. In between these two paragraphs (Para 28 and 58), they induce arguments to win popular acclaim, the prime objective of the judgement.
5. Since the presiding judge had acquitted Devender Pal Singh they wanted to go to the other extreme of death penalty. How it could become a rarest of rare case, is beyond the mind of an ordinary individual, but these two judges had a different mindset, to win popular acclaim.
6. In Para 60, JJ Passayat and Agrawal as if struck by a pinch of conscience, talk of power exercised by Governor/Government or in this case President and the Union Government to remit, or commute the sentence. But again, as the Youth Congress President was involved, and the Union has a Congress Government, it did not or could not do so, and ‘tarnish’ its image. Everyone has been deriving a vicarious pleasure in putting on tenterhooks of gallows, a person who, they knew has not committed the crime he is accused of, but because he upholds the values of Sikhism. I would not like to go deeper into that here. It is well known that Guru Tegh Bahadur had offered his sacrifice for basic human rights – freedom of religion and of conscience – the instant gainer were Brahmnical Caste Marks (tilak and janeu), in both of which Sikhism did not believe.
7. In a recent judgement a Bench of two judges of Supreme Court has recently held that rarest of rare is a subjective term and means different things to different judges/persons. It needs to be looked into afresh. How could a person sentenced to death in four different cases, for cutting into pieces with his butchers saber (toka), the Sikhs in November 1984 pogrom could not be treated as a rarest of rare case by a Supreme Court Bench only smacks of a rare obfuscation of concerned judge’s mind for ulterior purpose. Obviously, the level of justice administered to some people smacks of partisanship.
8. Devender Pal Singh was arrested on January 19, 1995 and has since been in custody/jail, now for over 18 years: he has suffered both mentally and physically. He is a highly educated man, and but for the urge for a popular acclaim entrained at various levels, Devender Pal Singh would have been a free man, well into his career. He is now nearing 48, and on merits needs to be not only released but also paid a hefty compensation for the wrongs done to him.
9. I must place on record that I have never met Devender Pal Singh or any member of his family and surprisingly I do not know even his address or where abouts.
10. I would request you to kindly look into the case sympathetically as a Human Rights case.
With kind regards
Yours faithfully,
(Sangat Singh)
Encl: (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 234
IV
Phone: 2921 4294
Dr. Sangat Singh S-181 Greater Kailash, Part-2,
New Delhi - 110 048
Dr. Manmohan Singh, April 22, 2013
Prime Minister of India,
7 Race Course Road,
New Delhi - 110 001
Sub : Bomb Blast of 1993 outside office of Youth Congress President :
Conviction of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar
Sir,
Last Monday, April 15, S. Parkash Singh Badal, Chief Minister, Punjab and Sukhbir Singh Badal, Dy Chief Minister, had met you in connection with conviction of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, and pleaded his case for conversion of his death sentence to life imprisonment. New facts have come to light that the bomb outside the office of Youth Congress President, New Delhi, in 1993 was blasted by state authorities and was not the work of Bhullar for which he has been convicted. The Union Home Ministry, I.B./Police came to know of the fact immediately, but Law Ministry was not kept informed, nor were the Courts leading to miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court was taken for a ride.
2. A Bench of Supreme Court on Friday, April 12, 2013, turned down a petition on behalf of Devender Pal Singh (Bhullar) to commute his death sentence. The news with various actors like, a) Manjinder Singh Bitta, former Youth Congress President (- outside whose office a bomb exploded in 1993, the subject matter of Bhullar's being sentenced to death -) was shown live on various TV channels right from about noon to late in the evening, with his acerbic comments and answers to questions posed by newsmen; b) visual scenes of Devender Pal Singh’s physical and mental condition, however dated; and c) Navneet Kaur, Bhullar’s wife who had flown especially, for the judgment from Canada where she normally now lives, and her reaction.
3. M.S. Bitta’s testimony is of special importance and needs a detailed examination.
4. A Bomb blast took place in 1992 of which Bitta was said to be the main target. Who blasted that bomb? No one gets enlightened on that. But Bitta got security cover.
5. In 1993, Bitta got elected as President of Youth Congress. As a result, his security cover was withdrawn by BJP led Delhi Admn. Bitta felt highly peeved. He eventually rang up K.P.S. Gill, Director General, Punjab Police. He was told that there would be a bomb blast outside his office the very next day. KPS Gill could not have passed on such information to Delhi Administration, as BJP was in power there. The Central Government, which controlled the police was being run by P.V. Narasimaha Roa of Congress (I). Was it sent to them in time, with definite information about the target, outside Bitta’s Youth Congress office? Did I.B./POLICE and others failed to act in view of the definite information about the timing and the exact place of the threatened bomb blast coming from a source like DG (Punjab Police)? The answer, obviously, is No. Did Bitta, keeping in view the definite information he had, prevent a gathering outside his office to obviate the attempt, or cause a lesser damage? NO, as that would have meant his acting like a Guy Fawkse. As it was, the bomb blast did take place causing 9 deaths and 25 injured persons including, for convenience, Bitta, who was expecting it. Result: M.S. Bitta got his security cover back. That was the precise objective of the blast. Who performed it? The answer lies in the narration above. KPS Gill, it may be mentioned was running amuck in 1993-94 and after, with SC Judges continuously ranting at him; they either could not or deliberately did not discipline him. I don’t want to go into the reasons for that here.
6. Bitta’s second grouse was against Kapil Sibal, now Cabinet Minister, for having fought the case for Devender Pal Singh before the Supreme Court, leading to the split judgment of 2002.The availing of services of Kapil Sibal shows clearly that Devender Pal Singh was neither a Khalistani, nor a terrorist. It may be mentioned that Kapil Sibal comes from a family of Arya Samaj, which has been in the forefront in confronting Sikhism and Sikh aspirations. That alone shows that Devender Pal Singh, who was very much in his health, and his family had a liberal outlook and did not entertain such apprehensions. Besides, Kapil Sibal must have spoken to him and his family members to convince himself that he was not defending a terrorist, but an ordinary person having multiple criminal charges including violation of Passport Act against him. It would be a reflection on Kapil Sibal if he were accused of defending a terrorist.
7. M.S. Bitta made acerbic comments on various Congress leaders, including Ms. Ambika Soni, earlier a Cabinet Minister, to advise him to back out from harming Devender Pal Singh. Why did they do so? They must have, or the Government to their knowledge must have, come to know the truth about the 1993 blast, that it was an internal affair, and not one to be attributed to Devender Pal Singh? The accusing finger officially pointed to some one else.
8. M.S. Bitta mentioned that he made several attempts to see Smt. Sonia Gandhi but to no avail. He also mentioned in disparage that he was neither offered a seat in the Upper House nor anything else. Possibly, Sonia Gandhi must have come to know of the truth about 1993 blast and rise of Bitta as a result of that.
9. M.S. Bitta ranted against Smt. Sheila Dixit for admission of DPS Bhullar in the Institute of Human Behaviors and Allied Science, Dilshad Garden, Jhilmil, Delhi 110091, where he is now admitted for the last over 2 years. The TV channels showed Devender Pal Singh in the reel just a vegetable. His wife said Bhullar does not/can not/is not in a position to understand that his petition to Supreme Court has been negatived.
10. I would request you to issue orders to the Home Ministry/ Police/necessary authorities to take control of the Reel of the interview of M.S. Bitta conducted on April 12, and examine it to come to conclusions. I had seen TV channels of Headlines Today, NewsX, and a couple of more probably NDTV, AAJ TAK, NEWS 24 & ABP. If full interview could be available with any one of them that would be good otherwise a combination shall be needed. In the light of that it would be up to you to talk to Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Ms. Ambika Soni and some other for certain clarifications.
11. It is my earnest conviction and submission that Devender Pal Singh Bhullar is a completely innocent person in the bomb blast case . I had written to Chairman National Human Rights Commission a week earlier and have been informally advised to address it to you.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(Sangat Singh)
Copies sent to the following:
I
1. Smt. Sonia Gandhi, New Delhi.
2. Sushil Kumar Shinde, Union Home Minister, N.D.
3. Kapil Sibal, Cabinet Minister, N.D.
4. Ms. Ambika Soni, former Cabinet Minister, N.D.
5. Partap Singh Bajwa, M.P. President, Pb. Congress, N.D.
6. Ms. Perneet Kaur, MoS, Ext. Affrs., N.D.
7. Capt. Amarinder Singh, Patiala.
8-9. Ms. Isher Ji + 1 for Ms. Gursharan Kaur, N.D.
II
1. Parkash Singh Badal, Chief Minister, Punjab.
2. Avtar Singh Makkar, President, SGPC, ASR.
3. Giani Gurbachan Singh, Head Granthi, Akal Takht, ASR.
4. Ms. Harsimrat Kaur, M.P. (Lok Sabha), N.D.
5. S.S. Dhindsa, M.P. (Rajya Sabha), N.D.
6. Tarlochan Singh, former M.P., N.D.
7. Spoke to Tejinder Singh Bhullar, California, USA, after he had seen my letter to PM, in Spokesman of May 1, 2013, in Panjabi on internet.
V
Mobile: 95409 72982
Dr. Sangat Singh S-181 Greater Kailash, Part-2,
New Delhi - 110 048
Hon’ble JJ. Altmas Kabir, April 26, 2013
Chief Justice of India,
Supreme Court of India,
Tilak Marg, New Delhi - 110 001
Sub : Bomb Blast of 1993 : Conviction of Devender Pal Singh
Hon’ble Sir,
I am writing to you in my capacity as author of The Sikhs in History (now, 7th edn. 2010), which has been acclaimed as one of the greatest works on Sikh history since Cunningham (1849). Hence, my submissions here represent the viewpoint of the Sikhs all over the world.
2. I have represented here for the first time new facts that the bomb blast of 1993, for which Devender Pal Singh (Bhullar) has been sentenced to death, was actually the work of some state actors, of course, in their unofficial capacity. The Intelligence Bureau and Home Ministry must have immediately come to know of it, but the Law Ministry as well as the courts were kept in the dark. Hence, the miscarriage of justice. The mystery now shall be solved two decades after its occurrence.
3. I submit that this would be a fit case for your honour to take its cognizance suo moto, to prevent the possibility of an innocent man being hanged.
4. In neighbouring Pakistan, former President Pervez Musharraf has formally been arrested, thanks to Pakistan’s Higher Courts. The nation here looks in a corresponding manner, when it sees Emperor Shah Jahan’s
balance as the emblem marking the insignia of Judiciary, and of course of your Hon’ble Courts. You are kindly requested to look into my letter of April 22, 2013 to P.M.
5. The details of the mystery can be solved by a competent organization, like CBI. It shall be upto your honour.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(Sangat Singh)
Encl. 1, as in para 4 above
Copies sent to the following:
1-2. Manjit Singh GK, President, DSGMC, N.D. + copy for Navneet Kaur.
3. Harvinder Singh Phoolka, Sr. Advocate, N.D.
4. K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Advocate, N.D.
5. Joginder Singh, Editor, Rozana Spokesman, Chandigarh.
6. Satnam Singh, Editor, Human Rights Darpan, Ludhiana.
7. J.J. Markandeya Katju, Chairman, Press Council of India, N.D.
8. Ram Jethmalani, MP, Sr. Advocate, N.D.
(He had filed a curative petition before the Court of Chief Justice of India, without taking into account my analysis of actual perpetrators of 1993 Bomb Blast, at the instance of Navneet Kaur.)
VI
The Rozana Spokesman in its issue of May 1, 2013, published in Punjabi my letter of April 22, to Prime Minister. It was now available to Head Granthi (so called Jathedar) of Akal Takht, and a host of others. At the meeting of Shiromani Akali Dal at Chandigarh on May 4, 2013, which included two Badals, besides President SGPC and others, it was decided to own up my letter and press it before Prime Minister shortly in an improvement on their earlier stand on Bhullar.
On May 8 morning, a delegation of various opposition parties, including two Badals, led by L. K. Advani addressed the President of India in Rashtrapati Bhavan on a number of issues. The two Badals later met the Prime Minister in his office in Parliament House in the afternoon. In between these two meetings (or was it a day or so earlier?), they decided not to mention of my letter to P.M., in the process affecting their stand on Bhullar. The Prime Minister, who had the inkling of their May 4 decision, was surprised at the inanity of Akali leaders. The situation was clear by the evening of May 8, when Jathedar Akal Takht offered juice to Ms. Nirprit Kaur at Jantar Mantar New Delhi to break her fast (she later regretted the faux paus), when President SGPC issued a customary statement concerning Bhullar, reflecting the old stand. Badals were back to square one, not to indirectly expose the atrocious Punjab Police Officers, some still in employment.
The Prime Minister took another few days to send my letter of April 22 to Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, for appropriate action, with a copy endorsed to me. Had Badals taken up the opportunity, I would have willingly receded into the background. Isolated, I penned down the following letter to the Home Secretary to continue the dialogue.
Phone: 2921 4294
Dr. Sangat Singh S-181 Greater Kailash, Part-2,
New Delhi - 110 048
Shri R.K. Singh, May 28, 2013
Union Home Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001
Dear Sir,
This is in continuation of PMO ID No. 1/3/2013- PMP2/50871 of May 20, 2013, addressed to you, with a copy endorsed to me.
2. I am enclosing a copy of my letter of March 16, 2013, which is self explanatory, addressed to the Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, Faridkot House, New Delhi 110 001, for your information, pl.
3. My current letter of April 22 to P.M. which overtakes the letter at para 2 above, spells out the perpetrators of 1993 bomb blast, two decades after its occurrence. It will be a fit case to be handed over to CBI. You can have the facility of talking over to Shri Kapil Sibal, who had been defence lawyer, and Ambika Soni Ji, if you like. It is obvious that Devender Pal Singh Bhullar was nowhere involved. Obviously, some judges of Supreme Court erred grieveously. I would’t like to go further into that.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
(Sangat Singh)
VII
It is said, when one channel of communication gets blocked, Satguru opens up another one. After going through my letter to Prime Minister in Punjabi in the Spokesman of May 1, 2013, Paramjit Singh Sarna and his younger brother Harvinder Singh Sarna, both former Presidents of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC), discussed the matter threadbare in early June with the now Law Minister, Kapil Sibal, with whom they have personal equation. Later, on June 8, 2013, they called on Smt. Sonia Gandhi, who already had apprised herself of contours of my letter to Prime Minister, the subject matter of their talks. The parameters were worked out. This came out as a great relief to me, as I had separately been advised that without pulling some political strings, things may not work out that easily. I must place my high sense of gratitude to them for providing speed and direction to Devender Pal Singh (Bhullar) affair. Here, they were working disinterestedly, and had the good of Panth as their motivating factor.
The Government had three options on my letter to Prime Minister, One, to ignore it or reject it. That was not possible keeping in view the representations on mass scale made by the people from all over Punjab, especially when elections were around the corner. But people’s memory is proverbially short. Two, to refer it to CBI. My reference to state actors indulging in such acts of militancy in their private capacity was a ploy. The government very well knew it. It was a risky proposition. Even the persons to be indicted would have spilled over the beans that they did so at the instance of state, and not in their personal capacities. Three, to release Bhullar under Presidential amnesty.1
The matter got complicated, firstly, by the new Chief Justice Jj P. Sathasivam’s in September 2013, suo moto constituting a 5-member Bench to sit on October 22, 2013, to consider over the question of delay by President in passing his orders on mercy petitions, as a Bench in a recent case had accepted the pleas and commuted a convict’s death sentence to life imprisonment2; and secondly, by a Bench of two Judges, G.S. Singhvi and S.J. Mukhopadhaya’s earlier rejecting in their Chamber, Ram Jethmalani/Navneet Kaur’s similar plea, as in their views Devender Pal Singh Bhullar was a ‘terrorist’ and not an ordinary criminal. Navneet Kaur’s refusal to go by my letter of April 22 to P.M. was proving damaging.
The bright side was provided by the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales headed by Chairwoman Kristy Brimelow’s detailed letter addressed to the President, Prime Minister, Home Minister, besides the Congress President Smt. Sonia Gandhi, going into the evidence tendered at the time of Bhullar’s trial and pleaded for his acquittal: the failur