<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up Union Home Secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla for going on a "lecturing spree" to it on a plea made by extradited gangster Abu Salem for honouring the assurance given in 2002 to Portugal authorities of not imposing on him a prison term beyond 25 years or the death penalty.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and C T Ravikumar also took an exception to the Secretary's assertion in an affidavit that the bench should decide Salem's appeal against the TADA court's sentence of the life term in the Mumbai serial blasts case, on merit. </p>.<p>"It is not for him to tell us what we should do," the court said.</p>.<p>The court also did not like Bhalla's statement that the assurance would be abided by "at the appropriate" by the executive in the year 2030.</p>.<p>"I don’t 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 don’t take it kindly,” Justice Kaul told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre. </p>.<p>Nataraj said Salem’s rights, conviction, etc are up to the judiciary to decide and as far as the assurance given is concerned, it is between one country and another.</p>.<p>"We asked you if you are standing by the assurance. You are saying that the consideration is premature. How can you say it is premature? The appeal is right for arguing," the bench told him.</p>.<p>The bench also pointed out that if the petitioner accepted his guilt in the case, then the question of assurance and the period of the sentence would come up consideration before it.</p>.<p>The court put the matter for further hearing on May 5.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up Union Home Secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla for going on a "lecturing spree" to it on a plea made by extradited gangster Abu Salem for honouring the assurance given in 2002 to Portugal authorities of not imposing on him a prison term beyond 25 years or the death penalty.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and C T Ravikumar also took an exception to the Secretary's assertion in an affidavit that the bench should decide Salem's appeal against the TADA court's sentence of the life term in the Mumbai serial blasts case, on merit. </p>.<p>"It is not for him to tell us what we should do," the court said.</p>.<p>The court also did not like Bhalla's statement that the assurance would be abided by "at the appropriate" by the executive in the year 2030.</p>.<p>"I don’t 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 don’t take it kindly,” Justice Kaul told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre. </p>.<p>Nataraj said Salem’s rights, conviction, etc are up to the judiciary to decide and as far as the assurance given is concerned, it is between one country and another.</p>.<p>"We asked you if you are standing by the assurance. You are saying that the consideration is premature. How can you say it is premature? The appeal is right for arguing," the bench told him.</p>.<p>The bench also pointed out that if the petitioner accepted his guilt in the case, then the question of assurance and the period of the sentence would come up consideration before it.</p>.<p>The court put the matter for further hearing on May 5.</p>
