<p>The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Centre on a petition filed by S Nalini, a life term convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, challenging the mandatory approval required from the Centre to remit a sentence in cases investigated by a central agency.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Describing it as “unconstitutional”, the convict challenged Section 435(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) which required the state government to consult the Centre before premature release of a convict if the case was investigated by the CBI or other agencies.<br /><br />A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice R M Lodha agreed to examine the plea by Nalini who contended that the legal provision came as a bar to allow her release along with six other convicts in the 1991 case.<br /><br />The Central government had earlier opposed before the apex court the Tamil Nadu government’s decision on February 19 to order premature release of all the convicts in the case. The apex court had stayed the state government’s decision.<br /><br />“Though 2,200 life convicts who put in less than 10 years of imprisonment were prematurely released by the Tamil Nadu government during the last 15 years, she was excluded from consideration for premature release only on the ground that her offence was investigated by the CBI i.e. Her case was covered by Section 435(1)(a) CrPC. The said section is unconstitutional,” the petition stated.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Centre on a petition filed by S Nalini, a life term convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, challenging the mandatory approval required from the Centre to remit a sentence in cases investigated by a central agency.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Describing it as “unconstitutional”, the convict challenged Section 435(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) which required the state government to consult the Centre before premature release of a convict if the case was investigated by the CBI or other agencies.<br /><br />A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice R M Lodha agreed to examine the plea by Nalini who contended that the legal provision came as a bar to allow her release along with six other convicts in the 1991 case.<br /><br />The Central government had earlier opposed before the apex court the Tamil Nadu government’s decision on February 19 to order premature release of all the convicts in the case. The apex court had stayed the state government’s decision.<br /><br />“Though 2,200 life convicts who put in less than 10 years of imprisonment were prematurely released by the Tamil Nadu government during the last 15 years, she was excluded from consideration for premature release only on the ground that her offence was investigated by the CBI i.e. Her case was covered by Section 435(1)(a) CrPC. The said section is unconstitutional,” the petition stated.</p>
