Rajiv Gandhi Assassination: Madras High Court Reserves Order On Convicts' Plea For Premature Release

The Madras High Court on Monday reserved orders on a plea filed by S. Nalini and RP Ravichandran for their premature release.

When the matter came up before the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala, the court stated that the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 could not be compared to the powers of the High Court under Article 226.

The court stated that if the petitioner was seeking a release on the basis of the recent Supreme Court order releasing Perarivalan, the petitioner could move the Supreme Court. 

Advocate M Radhakrishnan, appearing for Nalini, stated that the reliance was only on the observations made by the Supreme Court in the above case. He highlighted the findings of the court in that matter which were as follows:

(a) The law laid down by a catena of judgments of this Court is well- settled that the advice of the State Cabinet is binding on the Governor in the exercise of his powers under Article 161 of the Constitution.

(b) Non-exercise of the power under Article 161 or inexplicable delay in exercise of such power not attributable to the prisoner is subject to judicial review by this Court, especially when the State Cabinet has taken a decision to release the prisoner and made recommendations to the Governor to this effect.

(c) The reference of the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Cabinet by the Governor to the President of India two and a half years after such recommendation had been made is without any constitutional backing and is inimical to the scheme of our Constitution, whereby "the Governor is but a shorthand expression for the State Government" as observed by this Court.

Mr Radhakrishnan argued that the High Court was bound by these observations. 

He primarily relied on the decision in Maru Ram, and argued that the signature of the Governor was not necessary for release of the convict.

Advocate General Shunmughasundaram on the other hand contended that even relying on the decision in Maru Ram, the normal course of action requires signature of the Governor.

The court also considered remanding the matter. This was objected by the counsel for the petitioner who contended that even in Perarivalan's case, the Supreme Court was against remanding the matter and that the same would be without any use.

The court after hearing all sides has reserved orders.

Case Title: S. Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu and others

Case No: W.P 7615 of 2022