Why not release Rajiv Gandhi case convict for serving more than 30 yrs, SC asks Centre

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to explain why it should not order the release of A G Perarivalan, a life-term convict in the 1991 Rajiv Gandhi assassination case since he has served more than 30 years of jail.

A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai also asked the Centre if the Governor had power under the Constitution to send all recommendations made by the state Cabinet to the President for his decision, contrary to principle of federalism. The court was referring to the 2018 Cabinet resolution of the Tamil Nadu government for release of all the seven convicts in the case.

As senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the convict sought his release, the bench asked Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, “Why don’t you just agree to have him released? People who have served over 20 years are released. We are offering you an escape route here”.

Perarivalan is at present out on bail.

Referring to the Governor sitting on Cabinet’s recommendation to release Perarivalan and others for over three years, and then forwarding it to the President, the court asked Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, what is the provision under which the Governor can refer the decision of the state Cabinet to the President?

The court also sought a copy of the reference made by the Governor.

Nataraj, for his part, contended the Governor lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter here. In certain situations, the President, and not the Governor, is the competent authority, especially when a sentence of death has been commuted to life, he said.

The bench said if the Governor were to disagree with the state Cabinet's decision to release it, then he would refer it back to the Cabinet and not forward it to the President, who is bound by the aid and advice of the Centre.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, submitted that law was settled on the power of the Governor to decide mercy pleas under Article 161 of the Constitution, and the Centre is trying to unsettle it. He submitted that the Governor had to abide by the aid and advice of the state Cabinet, and was bound by the state government’s decision.

"Why should the convict be caught in the middle of who has the authority, President or Governor, to decide,” the bench asked.

Nataraj maintained that the Tamil Nadu Governor was right to send Perarivalan’s plea to the President.

The bench also agreed with Perarivalan’s counsel's suggestion that the court should also consider making the Governor’s exercise of power under Article 161 “time-bound.” The court put the matter for further hearing on May 4.