TN letter on release of Rajiv Gandhi convicts is useless: convict's lawyer
Chennai: The recent letter sent by the Tamil Nadu government to the Central government, seeking its views on its decision to release the seven life convicts involved in Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, will not help the convicts as of now since the same subject matter is pending before the Supreme Court. Instead, the state government can exercise its sovereign power under Article 161 of the Constitution and release them immediately, said Nalini’s lawyer.
“When the earlier proposal of the Government of Tamil Nadu, for exercise of power under section 432 CrPC is still pending before a 3-judges bench of the Supreme Court, how can the government address another identical letter to the Central government seeking its views? Why should the government choose to exercise its power of remission only under section 432 CrPC with the concurrence of the central government, and why should it not exercise its sovereign power under Article 161 of the Constitution and release all the seven life convicts immediately? The latest letter of the state government is only pretence unless Article 161 of the Constitution is immediately invoked,” said M Radhakrishnan, counsel for Nalini.
“It appears that these seven life convicts are treated unreasonably in the matter of their premature release only because one of the victims was the former Prime Minister. Our criminal jurisprudence treats every one equal. Status of a person is of no consequence. Therefore, all persons convicted under section 302 read with 120-B IPC should be treated alike — no matter who the victim was. Even now they can be released,” Mr Radhakrishnan added.
The Tamil Nadu government framed a scheme of premature release of life convicts dated November 10, 1994 for the purpose of release of life convicts who had completed 20 years of actual imprisonment on humanitarian grounds under Article 161 of the Constitution. Nalini had sent a representation to the state government on February 22, 2014 requesting it to consider her for premature release under this Scheme. As her representation was pending with the government, she filed a petition in the Madras high court and is still pending.
Radhakrishnan said the Constitution Bench has in its judgment categorically held “As has been stated by this court in Maru Ram (case) by the Constitution Bench, that the Constitutional power of remission provided under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution will always remain untouched, in as much as, though the statutory power of remission etc., as compared to Constitution power under Articles 72 and 161 looks similar, they are not the same. Therefore, we confine ourselves to the implication of statutory power of remission etc., provided under the criminal procedure code….”. Thus, the Constitution Bench judgment will not in any way affect the sovereign power of the state government under Article 161 of the Constitution. The Tamil Nadu government was at liberty to release the life convicts under Article 161 of the Constitution under the existing schemes of premature release, he added.
