'Don't need lecture from Home Secretary': Supreme Court slams Centre in Abu Salem case

The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly objected to some statements made by the Union Home Secretary in an affidavit on honouring the assurances made to Portugal during gangster Abu Salems extradition saying the judiciary does not need lecturing from the official in the matterHome 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 MM Sundresh told Additional Solicitor General KM NatarajJustice Kaul added I dont understand some part of the affidavit What we have to do we will do He should not be telling us after two opportunities to file the affidavit I dont take it kindlyHe asked Nataraj to be clear on the government stand in the matter whether it will honour the assurance made to PortugalThe Home Secretary in an affidavit informed the Supreme Court that the government was bound by the assurance given to Portugal while extraditing Abu Salem a convict in Mumbai serial blasts and would abide by it at an appropriate timeNataraj submitted that the government was bound by the assurance and urged the court to first decide from when the concerned 25 years period would run and then the other issues can be decided on the basis of that He said the sovereign commitment binds the two countries and the accused cannot claim benefit of the same as a matter of rightAt this Justice Kaul asked You dont want to take a standThe 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 dont understand what the other remedies area it saidJustice Kaul told Nataraj dont appreciate it the government cannot not take a stand before the court It said the Central government must be unequivocal in what it wanted to say and pointed out that the court did not like many sentences in the affidavit We will take a decision at an appropriate timeHe emphasised Are you sticking to the assurance no lecturing required by the Home SecretaryThe 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 extraditionAs Nataraj said Abu Salems 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 its premature The appeal is right for arguingThe Central government had contended that Salems contention about the noncompliance of assurance is premature and based on hypothetical surmises and can never be raised in present proceedingsAdvocate Rishi Malhotra representing Abu Salem had submitted that the judiciary is also bound by the sovereign assurance He had argued that the imprisonment term cannot extend beyond 25 years as per the assurance given by the Central governmentAfter a detailed hearing the top court posted the matter for further hearing on May 5The Home Secretary in an affidavit said The government of India gave an assurance vide letter dated December 17 2002 to the government of Portugal This assurance is an executive assurance given by one country to other in the exercise of their executive functionsThe period of 25 years which is mentioned in the assurance will be abided by the Union of India at an appropriate time subject to the remedies which may be available The question of the Union of India honouring its assurance dated December 17 2002 will arise only when the period of 25 years is to expire This date is November 10 2030The CBI in its affidavit had told the top court that an Indian court is not bound by the assurance given in 2002 by the then Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani to Portugal that gangster Abu Salem would not be imprisoned beyond 25 years after his extradition to IndiaThe Supreme Court then had said it was not happy with the CBIs reply in the matter and sought a response from the Home Secretary