Governor Banwarilal Purohit is likely to decide on whether to allow premature release of seven life convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, once he receives legal opinion.
Sources said the opinion, being sought from legal experts who are outside the State, is expected to be provided shortly.
Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s disposal last week of a petition filed by six persons against the State government’s 2014 proposal to grant the convicts remission, the matter still involves a number of complex issues, which is why the Governor requires the legal advice. On September 9, the State Cabinet, at its meeting, recommended the premature release of the convicts Sriharan alias Murugan, Suthendraraja alias Santhan, Robert Payas, S. Jayakumar alias Jayakumaran, A.G. Perarivalan alias Arivu, Ravichandran alias Ravi and Nalini Sriharan.
Till the model code of conduct came into force in March, the State government had sent two reminders to the Governor. On Monday, Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami told reporters in Salem that his government was committed to releasing the convicts.
Among the issues at hand are whether the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution (power of Governor to grant pardons and suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases) has to go by the advice of his Council of Ministers under all circumstances and is required to subscribe to the position of the Centre, being the appointee of the latter. Besides, an issue that remains unresolved is the future of four Sri Lankan nationals — Sriharan, Santhan, Robert Payas and S. Jayakumar — in the event of their release.
The Union government has made it clear that it is against any move to release the convicts.
Under such circumstances, the question is whether the Governor can take an independent decision, unmindful of the Centre’s position. Even about six months ago, the Union government conveyed to the Governor that it should be consulted. Another factor to be considered is the likely impact of the release on India-Sri Lanka ties. It is for this reason too that consultation with the Centre becomes essential.
The other important issue is what would happen to the four convicts who are Sri Lankan nationals. As on date, there are no reports of the Sri Lankan government’s willingness to take them back. All the four had entered India without valid documents. Two of them — Robert Payas and Jayakumar — registered themselves in September 1990 as refugees. For over five years, the Indian authorities stopped taking Sri Lankans as refugees. If the four want to remain in the country on release, the Centre has to make an exception for them. Alternatively, the possibility of "third country resettlement" has to be explored if the convicts are not keen on remaining in India or returning to Sri Lanka. One more issue is whether the Governor can segregate the case of the four convicts from that of the three, in the absence of satisfactory information on the future of the former. But, the Cabinet’s recommendation is for all the seven and under the given legal position, there is no scope for the Governor to make any differentiated decision.
