Countering the Centre’s stand that no further mercy be shown to convicts in the 1991 Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, the Tamil Nadu government told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that though the killing of a former Prime Minister on Indian soil was a “diabolic act”, factors such as public sentiment and the age and health of the convicts need to be considered by the government 24 years later.
The Centre had assumed the role of parens patriae [parent of the country] for those who lost their loved ones in the blast. It voiced its grief in the Supreme Court, saying it was plain injustice if the State government was allowed to “tinker” with, and use, its power of remission to release seven convicts whose death penalty had been commuted to life imprisonment by the court.
‘What is wrong?’But justifying its decision to remit the sentences, the State wondered why the UPA-I and II did not execute the convicts. “Why on earth did they not hang these people? A former Prime Minister was assassinated. If they [the UPA government] had moved one little finger, these people would have been hanged ... Was the reason behind this merciful, whimsical or political?” senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing Tamil Nadu, said addressing a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu. “Even if the reasons were political, what was wrong? Politics is not a dirty word. All institutions are part of body politic, and of course, we need good politics in this country.”
On granting remission, the State said it listened to the public mood. “All the parties, all the MLAs pleaded to us ‘don’t hang them.’ Was there a single little finger moved by the Opposition? No. Why? Because, the people did not want them to be hanged... What is wrong in listening to the people? ... that is good politics,” Mr. Dwivedi said.
To this, Chief Justice Dattu said the Supreme Court was not denying the State’s powers of remission, but only asking whether it had “meaningful and effective” consultation with the Centre before issuing the order of remission.
ConsultationUnder Section 434 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State government can remit sentences of convicts only after “consultation” with the Centre in cases investigated by the CBI. “The Centre is saying that I did the investigation and the trial. I got the conviction... now there should be a meaningful and effective concurrence with me before you grant remission,” Chief Justice Dattu remarked.
The CJI said that undeniably the fact that the investigation went to the CBI itself was a sign of the seriousness of the crime. “This is a serious issue here. In a serious issue, when the statute says consultation is necessary, it does not mean merely asking. Consultation here means ‘effective and meaningful’ concurrence,” the Chief Justice explained.
Mr. Dwivedi said the death penalty of certain convicts in the case was commuted to life, given the societal and circumstantial aspects of the present day.
Procedural lapsesThe court had on February 20, 2014 stayed the State government’s decision to release three convicts — Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan — whose death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment by it on February 18. Later, it also stayed the release of four other convicts Nalini, Robert Pious, Jayakumar and Ravichandran, saying there were procedural lapses on the part of the State. The Jayalalithaa government had decided to free all the seven convicts who have been in jail for 23 years for their role in the assassination in Sriperumbudur.
