Rajiv Gandhi case: SC to hear blast victims' petition against grant of remission to seven convicts

The apex court allows the victims to update their four-year-old petition

September 17, 2018 06:50 pm | Updated December 04, 2021 10:40 pm IST - NEW DELHI

 Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convicts A.G. Perarivalan, Murugan and Santhan. File Photo.

Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convicts A.G. Perarivalan, Murugan and Santhan. File Photo.

The Supreme Court on Monday decided to hear the victims of the bomb blast that killed former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, and gave them permission to file additional documents.

 

Sixteen people were killed and many grievously injured in the blast at Sriperumbudur near Chennai in 1991. The Central government had termed it a "gruesome, inhuman, uncivilised and merciless bomb blast".

With this latest order, the controversy surrounding the move made by the Tamil Nadu government for the release of the seven convicts has taken a new twist.

A Bench, led by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, allowed the victims to amend their petition, filed in March 2014, and bring on record the recent resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu government, which recommended to the Governor that the convicts be released.

Hearing after four weeks

The Bench, also comprising Justices Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, has scheduled the case for hearing after four weeks.

 

Petitioners S. Abbas, John Joseph, America V. Narayanan, Mrs. R. Mala, M. Samuvel Diraviyam and K. Ramasugandam had moved the Supreme Court against the then Jayalalithaa government’s proposal to grant the convicts remission in a letter dated February19, 2014.

“In the present case the State government had overlooked the above proposition for narrow political gain and in one stroke ordered for release of Rajiv assassins. The attitude of the State government is against the constitutional value and national spirit and for narrow political consideration,” the victims had contended.

They had said that the State should consider the effect of the release of the convicts on the families of the victims, society, and the precedent it would set for the future.

However, the Supreme Court at that time indicated that it would first take up the petition filed by the Centre, which too had moved it, challenging the State’s power to grant remission in the case investigated by the CBI. The victims’ petition was thus kept on hold.

Subsequently, on December 2, 2015, a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by then-Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu, interpreted the law to hold that the States cannot unilaterally remit the sentences of life convicts in cases investigated by a Central agency under a Central law.

T.N. wanted Centre to concur

This Bench, however, left the factual question of whether the seven convicts deserve remission or not to a three-judge Bench. Following this, the Tamil Nadu government wrote to the Centre on March 2, 2016 proposing the grant of remission to the convicts. The State government had wanted the Centre to concur.

 

But the Centre did not respond for almost two years. However, in April last, after an order from the Supreme Court, the Centre rejected Tamil Nadu’s proposal to release the seven convicts undergoing life imprisonment. It called the assassination “an unparalleled act in the annals of crimes committed in this country”.

On September 6, the Supreme Court Bench, led by Justice Gogoi, closed the Centre’s petition and gave liberty to the Tamil Nadu Governor to decide on the plea for pardon filed by one of the convicts, A.G. Perarivalan. Three days later, on September 9, the Tamil Nadu Cabinet recommended the release of all the seven convicts. The issue of their release is currently pending before the Governor.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.