Chidambaram rebuts Shah, cites legal process in Afzal Guru execution timeline

Senior Congress leader and former Home minister P. Chidambaram has strongly refuted Union minister Amit Shah’s claim regarding the execution delay of Afzal Guru, describing Shah’s statement as a "mixture of insinuation, lie, and distortion." This comes after Amit Shah asserted in the Rajya Sabha that Afzal Guru’s death sentence could not be carried out during Chidambaram’s tenure as Home minister.

Chidambaram clarified that the delay in Afzal Guru’s execution was due to the pending mercy petition filed by Guru’s wife, which was under consideration by the President of India throughout Chidambaram’s term from December 2008 to July 2012. He explained that the law mandates that a death sentence cannot be executed until the mercy petition is disposed of. The petition was eventually rejected by the President on 3 February 2013, with Afzal Guru being hanged six days later on 9 February 2013.

In a post on social media platform X, Chidambaram emphasised, "After the conviction and sentence by the Courts, Afzal Guru’s wife filed, on his behalf, a mercy petition to the President of India in October 2006. The President rejected the mercy petition on 3-2-2013. Afzal Guru was hanged six days later on 9-2-2013. I was Home Minister during 1-12-2008 and 31-7-2012. During the entire period, the mercy petition was pending before the President. The law is that a sentence of death cannot be carried out until the mercy petition is disposed of."

This rebuttal follows Shah’s broader criticism of the Congress party, accusing it of politicising terrorism to malign the majority community under the guise of “saffron terror” and questioning its political motives in relation to terror incidents like the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

Chidambaram’s explanation aligns with past disclosures that mercy petitions are considered in sequence and involves a legal and procedural process. The pending status of Afzal Guru’s mercy petition during his time in office was a matter of administrative process, not deliberate delay