Convicts’ release: Centre seeks review of SC’s order in Rajiv case

The petition, drafted by advocates Rajat Nair and Vatsal Joshi, rued that no notice was issued to the Union of India, and nor was it formally impleaded as a party before the Supreme Court passed its order on November 11.

New Delhi Freeing six convicts involved in the assassination of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi has resulted in the “miscarriage of justice” and also an interference into the sovereign powers of the Union of India so far as the release of four Sri Lanka nationals is concerned, the Centre told the Supreme Court on Thursday as it demanded a review of the court’s November 11 order granting remission to the convicts.

The Centre’s petition found fault with the court order that also granted remission to four Sri Lankan nationals. (HT Archive)

While the November 11 order mirrored the reasoning adopted by the top court nearly six months ago when it set free the seventh convict, AG Perarivalan, on the grounds of prolonged incarceration, poor health, and good conduct, the Centre complained against not getting an opportunity to argue and explain how the convicts stood on different footings.

“The present matter pertains to grant of remission to the convicts who had assassinated the then Prime Minister of India Sh Rajiv Gandhi. It is submitted that in such a sensitive matter the assistance of Union of India was of paramount importance as the matter has huge repercussions on the public order, peace, tranquility and criminal justice system of the country,” the review petition by the Centre said.

The petition, drafted by advocates Rajat Nair and Vatsal Joshi, rued that no notice was issued to the Union of India, and nor was it formally impleaded as a party before the Supreme Court passed its order on November 11.

“The Union of India (UOI) was not made a party in the special leave petition/criminal appeal filed by the convicts. Hence, the UOI had not been given an opportunity to be heard in the matter. On November 11, this hon’ble court without giving UOI an opportunity of being heard granted remission to six convicts, four of which were foreign nationals,” stated the petition.

A bench led by justice BR Gavai on November 11 freed six convicts, including the sole woman in the group, S Nalini. Besides Nalini, the other convicts were V Sriharan alias Murugan, RP Ravichandran, T Suthenthraraja alias Santhan, Robert Payas, and Jeyakumar. Of them, Murugan, Payas, Jeyakumar and Santhan are Sri Lankans.

The Centre’s petition found fault with the court order that also granted remission to four Sri Lankan nationals. “By not giving Union of India an opportunity of being heard, an order was passed by this hon’ble court dated November 11 interfering with the sovereign powers of the central government dealing with the foreigners,” complained the Centre.

Considering the seriousness and sensitivity of the matter and the fact that four out of six convicts were Lanka nationals, the government added, “any decision with regard to foreigners would have serious international implication, therefore, the same falls under the sovereign power of Union of India under the seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution.”

The petition said that the top court could not have drawn a parallel with its May order releasing Perarivalan since the present batch of convicts involved foreigners and also because four of these convicts had not preferred their mercy petitions before the Tamil Nadu governor.

A review petition is usually considered inside judges’ chambers, without oral arguments. The Centre has, however, sought an open court hearing of its plea.

On November 11, the apex court noted that the criteria adopted for the release of Perarivalan equally applied to the remaining six convicts.

The Tamil Nadu government recommended the release of all seven convicts on September 9, 2018. This opinion was held to be binding on the Tamil Nadu governor by the top court in the Perarivalan case and, therefore, applied to the other accused. The governor sought the advice of the President on the state’s recommendation, but the court said that it was his call to take and that he was bound to follow the decision of the state.

The court’s November 11 order was welcomed by Tamil Nadu chief minister MK Stalin. “This judgment of the Supreme Court is proof that the decisions and decisions of the government elected by the people should not be shelved by the governors in the appointed positions,” he said on that day.

The Congress, however, termed the SC order “totally unacceptable and completely erroneous”, and said the apex court has not acted in consonance with the spirit of India on this issue. Addressing a press conference later that day, party leader Abhishek Singhvi said: “Rajiv Gandhi’s killing was an attack on the national integrity.” He added that Congress disagreed even with former party president Sonia Gandhi on the issue.