The Tamil Nadu Government on Friday sought the dismissal of a petition pleading for release from jail filed by Nalini Sriharan, the life convict in the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, on the grounds that the Central Government was yet to respond to the State’s proposal to release her and six other convicts in the case.
Nalini had moved the Madras High Court seeking to be released from jail as per a 1994 Government Order that provides for the release of life convicts who had spent 20 years or more in jail. She contended that of the 26 accused who were handed down death sentences by the trial court, the Supreme Court had upheld the capital punishment only in respect of four persons and awarded life sentences to three others. The remaining persons were released.
Subsequently, in April 2000, the Tamil Nadu Government had commuted Nalini’s death sentence to life, invoking Article 161 of the Constitution.
Noose spared
In February 2014, the Supreme Court had spared the noose to the remaining three black warrant prisoners – Murugan (Nalini’s husband), Santhan and Perarivalan – due to the inordinate delay in disposing of their mercy petitions by the President of India.
Pointing out that she had completed over 20 years in prison, Nalini prayed for her release on humanitarian grounds.
However, the State government, in its counter affidavit, opposed the plea. It said, before releasing the convicts, the State government is mandated to consult the Union government since the case was probed by a central agency (CBI). It had written to the Centre on February 19, 2014 to release them. But the Union Government approached the Supreme Court, which in July 2014 restrained State Governments, including Tamil Nadu, from offering remission to life convicts in cases probed by the CBI.
The apex court later modified its order on December 2, 2015 stating that the term ‘consultation’ found in section 435(1) of CrPC implied ‘concurrence’.
After this clarification, the Tamil Nadu government, on March 2, 2016 once again wrote to the Centre seeking its concurrence. The Centre is yet to respond to this.
