Mercy plea: SC rap on govt’s knuckles apt

The Supreme Court has not only exposed the dilatory and obstructionist tactics of the central government over the mercy plea of Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict Perarivalan but also done some plainspeaking to the government on it. Perarivalan’s plea for remission of sentence has been pending for years, with the then Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit, who was the authority to grant it, shifting the responsibility to President Ram Nath Kovind, and the President not acting on it. The court has again reminded all that it was the Governor’s responsibility to grant remission since the state cabinet had, as early as September 2018, made the recommendation to him. The Governor was constitutionally bound to act on it. It was wrong to refer the matter to the President and, as the court noted, the Governor did not have the authority to do so.

Also Read | President got no role in deciding mercy plea by Rajiv Gandhi case convict: SC

From the arguments made before the court by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, it is clear that the Centre only wanted the plea to be rejected on some excuse or the other, and it presented flimsy arguments for that. The Centre has been deliberately blocking the matter and the state Governor could only have acted on the cues from the Centre. The government disingenuously told the court to wait for the President’s decision, even as the President has sat on it since January 2021. The court rejected every argument and asserted that it would not allow any authority, howsoever high, to take an unconstitutional decision or action. The reference was obviously to the Governor who was told by the court as early as 2018 to take a decision on Perarivalan’s plea. The court also told the government without mincing words that it would decide whether the Governor had the authority to refer the matter to the President. It was not for the President to interpret the law, the court would do it.

The issue of remission for Perarivalan is a humanitarian, and now a legal, issue but the government has treated it as a political matter. The case for remission is strong and fair, as the convict has spent 30 years in jail now. His role in the assassination plot was very minor, and he may not even have known that he was a part of it. He has shown good conduct in jail and should be given a chance to be a part of society. The central government has been wilfully evasive in the matter. The court has seen through this and has asserted the convict’s right to remission. Justice will hopefully prevail as the court has said that it will consider ordering his release if the Governor does not do so.