Rajiv case convict to seek release under Article 161

December 13, 2015 12:00 am | Updated November 17, 2021 03:13 am IST - VELLORE:

Advocates after meeting Nalini, a life convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, at the Special Prison for Women on Saturday.— Photo: C. Venkatachalapathy

Advocates after meeting Nalini, a life convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, at the Special Prison for Women on Saturday.— Photo: C. Venkatachalapathy

After serving 24 years in prison, Nalini Sriharan, a life convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, will shortly file a petition in the Madras High Court seeking release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, according to her lawyer.

This comes after the Supreme Court’s ruling early this month that the Central government, and not the State, has the “primacy” in deciding the release of persons convicted under a Central law and in cases investigated by the CBI.

It was delivering its verdict on the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to release seven life convicts, including Nalini, her husband Murugan and Perarivalan, in the case.

On Saturday, the advocates of 48-year-old Nalini met her at the Special Prison for Women, Vellore.

“We are planning to file a petition in the Madras High Court shortly seeking release of Nalini under Article 161 of the Constitution,” said M. Radhakrishnan, counsel for Nalini.

According to Article 161, the Governor of the State shall have the power to grant pardon, reprieve, respite or remission of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extend.

In the affidavit, Nalini, pointed out that after her death sentence in the case was commuted to life imprisonment in 2000, about 2,200 life convicts who had served 10 years of imprisonment and less were released by the State government under Article 161. However, she had not been considered for premature release on the ground that her case fell under Section 435 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

She said the State government had framed a scheme of premature release of life convicts who had completed 20 years of imprisonment on humanitarian grounds under Article 161. Some of the life convicts who had completed 20 years had been released.

Nalini had made the representation under this scheme on February 22, 2014 to for premature release, but no decision was taken.

Mr. Radhakrishnan pointed out that the release of a prisoner under Article 161 does not necessitate the Central government’s consent or concurrence.

The Council of Ministers should recommend a prisoner’s release. The Governor will release him/her based on their advice, he said.

Nalini said that the government’s failure to decide on the representation within a reasonable time would violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The advocate said Nalini was upset by the Supreme Court’s verdict. “However, we spoke to her and made her confident,” he said.

According to it the Governor has the power to grant pardon, reprieve,

or remission of punishment

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.