Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case| State's Decision To Commute Sentences Binding On Governor : TN Govt Tells Supreme Court
story
The Tamil Nadu government has filed its reply in the special leave petitions filed by Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts Nalini Srihar and R.P. Ravichandran seeking premature release.The reply affidavit filed by the State government submitted that it is the competent authority to take decision of the petitioner's pleas under Article 161 of the Constitution. It further stated that the decision...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Tamil Nadu government has filed its reply in the special leave petitions filed by Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts Nalini Srihar and R.P. Ravichandran seeking premature release.
The reply affidavit filed by the State government submitted that it is the competent authority to take decision of the petitioner's pleas under Article 161 of the Constitution. It further stated that the decision of the cabinet dated September 9, 2018 pertaining to recommending the remission of life sentence to the Governor is final.
"That the law relating to the power of Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and the power of the State government in dealing with the offences fall under the exclusive domain of the State government is also well settled in view of the clarifications rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Union of India vs Sriharan @ Murugan & others…."
The petitioners was pronounced guilty in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by a special court constituted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. Nalini, along with 25 others, was sentenced to death by the TADA Court in 1998. When the matter travelled to the Supreme Court, a Bench headed by Justice K.T. Thomas acquitted 19 convicts, but upheld the death sentences of four of them, including Nalini. Three others were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Ravichandran was among them. Nalini's death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in 2000 by the Tamil Nadu government. In 2018, the AIADMK Cabinet recommended the release of the seven convicts, but the Governor refused to authorise this remission.
Further, the reply-affidavit pointed out that the offence for which the writ petitioner has been undergoing the life sentence in prison is directly related to "public order" which is in the exclusive domain of the State government. And therefore, the executive power of the State government extends to such offence.
"..It is the Governor of the State of Tamil Nadu who can exercise the power to remit the sentence of life imprisonment and following this dictum only, the state government had passed the resolution in the Cabinet meeting held on 09.09.2018 recommending to the His Excellency Governor of Tamil Nadu for remission of the life sentence of the petitioner including six other life convict prisoners involved in the same offence considering their representation submitted under Article 161 of the Constitution of India."
The reply also added that the though the it is well settled that the aid and advise of the State Cabinet under Article 161 of the Constitution of India made on 09.09.2018 is undoubtedly binding on the Governor, the release of the writ petitioner can happen only after the Government issues an order to this effect upon the Governor's approval.
Further, the reply states that the state government's recommendation to remit the life sentence of the petitioner was sent the Governor of Tamil Nadu and it has been pending with his office for more than 2 ½ years and the recommendation was finally forwarded by the him to the President of India on January 27, 2021. It still remains undecided by the President for the past one year and 9 months.
Background
The petitioners had moved the Madras High Court for a sanction of their release, relying on the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year to invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 142 and release another convict, A.G. Perarivalan. But a Division Bench of the High Court rejected the petitions filed by Nalini and Ravichandran, observing that the High Court did not have special powers enjoyed by the Supreme Court under Article 142. Thus, the Bench, composed of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N. Mala, refused to order the release of the convicts without the assent of the Governor.
It is this decision which has been challenged by the petitioners before the Supreme Court. The petitioners are currently out on parole, having been released during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Case Title : R.P. Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Its Chief Secretary & Ors. [SLP (Crl) No. 7536/2022] & S. Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. [SLP (Crl) No. 8178/2022]