Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts Nalini, Murugan launch hunger strike (Tamil Nadu)

Feb 11, 2019 21:10 IST

M Manikandan 

Hindustan Times, Chennai

Nalini Sriharan and her husband Murugan have been in prison for 28 years and their death sentences were commuted to life in prison. 

Five months after the Tamil Nadu cabinet recommended their release from jail, Nalini Sriharan (55) and her husband Murugan (52), two convicts serving life sentences in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, have gone on indefinite hunger strike in Vellore Central prison demanding their early release.

They have also appealed to the Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit to release the other five convicts in the case - Perarivalan, Santhan, Robert Payas, Jayakumar and Ravichandran. According to P Pugazhendhi, Nalini’s lawyer, since the TN Governor Banwarilal Purohit has not responded to the Cabinet’s resolution passed last September recommending the release of seven convicts, the husband and wife duo have started an indefinite hunger strike. “While Nalini started her protest inside the special prison for women in Vellore on Saturday, her husband Murugan launched his hunger strike protest on February 2. Even as the state government has urged the TN Governor for the release of seven convicts, the Governor has not taken any decision. Even though all the seven convicts have spent most of their lives in prison, it is not fathomable why the Governor is delaying the signing of papers enabling their release in spite of the TN cabinet resolution recommending the same,” Pugazhendhi said.

The lawyer said Murugan had been drinking only water since February 2. On February 8 when he met him, Murugan had stopped taking water. The prison staff could not be contacted for comments on Nalini and Murugan’s health but Pugazhendhi said they had requested the duo to end their fast. The Tamil Nadu cabinet had passed a resolution in September last year urging the Governor to release the seven convicts under Article 161 of the Constitution. Nalini also wrote a letter to the Governor on Saturday. “I want to go away from the earth by observing fast from Saturday morning, till I accomplish eternal freedom. Justice was denied to us for the past 28 years. We all are just innocent and circumstances made investigation officers to bring us under this case,” Nalini said in her letter.

Pugazhendhi also said that they would file a petition in the Madras high court seeking a direction to the Governor to take action on the Tamil Nadu Cabinet’s resolution. When Perarivalan approached the Supreme Court last August for release, the Union Government had declined to release the seven accused saying that it would set a wrong example. Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was killed in Sriperumbudur near Chennai, when he was attending an election rally on May 21, 1991 by a suicide bomber named Dhanu of the Sri Lankan rebel group Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

A Special Investigation Team (SIT) had taken 23 people into custody for investigation and a trial court had awarded death sentence to all. In 1999, the Supreme Court released 19 accused and convicted three people for a life. But it had upheld the death sentence for Nalini, Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan. In April 2000, the then Tamil Nadu Governor Fathima Beevi commuted Nalini’s death sentence into life imprisonment. Eight years after that, Rajiv Gandhi’s daughter Priyanka Gandhi Vadra met Nalini in Vellore prison. Priyanka at that time said that she had forgiven Nalini. In 2014, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan into life sentence citing the delay in examining their mercy petitions.

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-convicts-nalini-murugan-launch-hunger-strike/story-oaIxuG7PltdzkZYk3Yn1eJ.html (accessed on 19 February 2019)

Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict Perarivalan attacked with iron rod in jail (Tamil Nadu)

September 13, 2016UPDATED: September 14, 2016 00:09 IST 

Police sources said the Rajiv case convict received blows from the rod on his forehead, scalp and also his arms when he tried to fend off the attack. 

AG Peralivalan, one of the seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, was today assaulted with an iron rod inside the high security central prison here by another inmate.

ATTACK AND MOTIVE

Perarivalan, who has been lodged in the high security block, was attacked by another inmate Rajesh Khanna, a life convict in a murder case. "Perarivalan was attacked...with an iron rod and it was used by another convict who is also in the high security block, to assault the Rajiv case convict," a top jail official told PTI, adding he was now doing well. Police sources said the Rajiv case convict received blows from the rod on his forehead, scalp and also his arms when he tried to fend off the attack. He was taken to hospital where his wounds were sutured, dressed and treated. They said an inquiry was being held by senior prison officials. On the reason for the attack, they indicated it was related to shifting Khanna to another block. They declined to go further into it, since an inquiry was being held.

PARTIES DEMANDS PROTECTION

Learning about the incident, Perarivalan's mother Arputhammal visited him. Later speaking to reporters here, she wondered how her 'soft-spoken' son could have become the target of an attack. Perarivalan, also known as 'Arivu' has been in prison for over 25 years after he was convicted in the case. Political parties, including the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), have demanded that the culprits behind the incident be punished. PMK Chief Ramadoss said those behind the attack should be punished. He urged the Tamil Nadu Government to free all seven convicts on remission and in case of the legal process delaying their release, the state should give them leave. MDMK Chief Vaiko condemned the attack, saying the incident raised doubts if it was an attempt to murder Perarivalan. He demanded that the state provide him adequate security and find out the reason behind the attack. He also urged the government to release Perarivalan on parole.

RECAP

Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a suicide bomber at Sriperumbudur near Chennai on May 21, 1991. Seven persons - Murugan, Santhan, Perarivalan, Nalini, Robert Payas, Jayakumar and Ravichandran, were convicted in the case. Nalini's death sentence was commuted to life in 2000 following a cabinet recommendation and appeal by Rajiv's wife, Sonia Gandhi. The Supreme Court had commuted the death sentence of Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan in February 2014 following delay in deciding on their mercy plea. The Tamil Nadu Government had in March this year decided to remit the sentences of all the seven convicts. However, the matter soon went to the Apex Court and is pending there, with the Centre questioning the state's powers to grant remission to them on specific grounds.

Source: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-tamil-nadu-pmk-340913-2016-09-13 (Accessed 20 December 2018) 

TN can’t release Rajiv killers without consulting Centre, says Supreme Court

Written by Utkarsh Anand |New Delhi |Updated: December 3, 2015 12:15:13 am

The judgment is a setback to J Jayalalithaa’s government in Tamil Nadu which had in February 2014 decided to release all the seven convicts in the case. 

Blocking the release of seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, the Supreme Court Wednesday said state governments cannot remit jail terms of convicts in cases of national importance without the Centre’s approval. The court blocked the J Jayalaithaa-led Tamil Nadu government’s move to free all seven convicts, and said no remission can be granted by “putting the interest of the nation in peril”. Regretting that “lawlessness is the order of the day”, the Constitution Bench held that a state government cannot be allowed to exercise its power of remission and free convicts in cases which have been investigated by central agencies such as CBI and NIA and where offences entail death penalty or conviction is for an offence relating to Executive Power of the Union. 

The bench, led by Chief Justice H L Dattu, held that cases such as the killing of a former prime minister would mean assassinating “national figures of very high status by resorting to diabolic criminal conduct” and that “such a situation should necessarily be taken as the one coming within the category of internal or external aggression”. The judgment, by a 3:2 majority, noted that granting the Centre overriding authority in cases of national importance “cannot held to be interfering with the independent existence of the state concerned”. While Justice F M I Kalifulla, the author of the verdict, and Justice P C Ghose wrote the majority judgment with the CJI, Justice Uday U Lalit and Justice Abhay M Sapre concurred with them on all issues except one legal point.

Murugan-Santhan-and-Perarivalan

The two judges differed on whether there can be a “special” category of punishment beyond 14 years in jail and if the power of the state government for remission can be curtailed. Underscoring that life imprisonment means jail term till the end of one’s natural life, the majority verdict held that there is no bar on a high court and the top court to sentence a convict to 20 or 30 years in jail without benefit of remission. Referring to the Rajiv Gandhi case, the court said: “We find no scope to apply the concept of ray of hope to come to the rescue of such hardened, heartless offenders, which if considered in their favour will only result in misplaced sympathy and again will not be in the interest of society. Therefore, we reject the said argument outright.” It also criticised the Tamil Nadu government for exercising its power of remission “suo motu”.

The bench ruled that no state can carry out this exercise suo motu and there has to be an application by the convict first. On February 18, 2014, the apex court had commuted death sentence of three convicts in the case — Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan — due to inordinate delay by the executive in deciding their mercy plea. The next day, the Tamil Nadu government suo motu ordered the release of all seven life convicts. The Centre then rushed to the court on February 20, 2014 and got their release stayed. The bench then framed seven questions and referred it to a Constitution Bench. After Wednesday’s verdict, the case has been sent back to the three-judge bench.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/convicts-in-rajiv-gandhi-assassination-case-will-remain-behind-bars-sc-rules/ (Accessed on 19 December 2018)

The politics of executions in India

By Bobby Naqvi | Special to Gulf NewsPublished: 17:19 February 24, 2014

 Indian Muslims and people of Guru’s home state of Jammu and Kashmir have accused the Congress government of playing dirty politics by fast-tracking his execution. This allegation has some substance.

 “The 23 years of life in a prison and that too on death row and the solitary isolation has almost snatched everything from us and all we have is life in our body and hope in our heart. Please release my father and get him back to me, you’ll be hailed as saviours.” Priyanka Harithra,Daughter of Nalini and Murugan

 “Guru was killed by the Congress for political gains. They sacrificed him for votes. If after so many years, their sentence could be commuted, what was the hurry in killing him?” Tabassum, Widow of Afzal Guru.

These two statements are a telling commentary on how Indian politicians and governments adopt double standards while dealing with Muslim and non-Muslims sentenced to death by a court of law. The first is from a mercy petition written by Priyanka Harithra, the 22-year-old UK-based daughter of Nalini and Murugan who were awarded death penalty in 1999 for assassinating former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991. The mercy petition this week was addressed to Rajiv’s widow Sonia and son Rahul after Supreme Court commuted Murugan’s death sentence over a technicality. Nalini’s death sentence was commuted after she was pardoned by Rajiv’s family members on humanitarian grounds. Harithra pleaded with Sonia and Rahul to release her parents.

Harithra’s mercy plea came after Supreme Court on February 18 commuted death sentence of Rajiv’s killers, including Murugan. While commuting the death sentence, the court cited federal government’s delay in dealing with all the four convicts’ mercy petitions. Soon after this verdict, a regional politician and chief minister of Tamil Nadu, J. Jayalalitha announced her government will release the four convicts, all from Tamil Nadu. Her decision, months before general elections, is seen as an attempt to gain support of Tamil nationalists who sympathise with the assassins and blame Rajiv for sending Indian army troops to crush the Tamil rebellion in Sri Lanka.

The second statement is of the widow of a Muslim, Afzal Guru, who was hanged for his role in the December 2001 Parliament attack. After the court commuted Murugan’s death sentence, Guru’s widow Tabassum questioned why her husband was hanged when Rajiv’s killers who were sentenced way back in 1999 have now been pardoned. Guru was sentenced to death in 2003 and the verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005. In a secret operation on February 9, 2013, the Congress-led UPA government executed Guru and buried him inside Tihar jail where he was lodged since his arrest. The hanging came as a surprise because Guru was 25th on the list of death convicts and the government deals with mercy petitions from death convicts in a chronological order. Clearly, 43-year-old Guru was treated as a special case for some inexplicable reasons and his hanging and burial was shrouded in secrecy. Moreover, the government failed to inform the family members, Guru’s widow Tabassum received a letter about the hanging two days after TV channels broke the news. Tabassum, who has a 13-year-old son, was also not informed about the rejection of her mercy petition. One year on, Tabassum is still pleading for her husband’s body and belongings.

Impressing Hindu nationalists

Indian Muslims and people of Guru’s home state of Jammu and Kashmir have accused the Congress government of playing dirty politics by fast-tracking Guru’s execution. The hanging, they feel, was an attempt to impress Hindu nationalists and a crude attempt to check the rising graph of right-wing opposition Bharatiya Janata Party which had been demanding swift execution of Guru. This allegation has some substance.

To get a sense of this complex game of politics of death practiced by governments and politicians, it is necessary to go into the background of Guru’s sentencing. Throughout his trial, Guru maintained his innocence and denied he had any role in attacking Parliament in which a dozen people were killed. The Supreme Court, in a controversial, order rejected Guru’s appeal and upheld the death sentence. The order, considered controversial by Muslims and human rights activists, makes an interesting read: “Thus the conspirator, even though he may not have indulged in the actual criminal operations to execute the conspiracy, becomes liable for the punishment… The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender.”

Thus, the Supreme Court, while admitting there was no direct evidence to convict Guru, went ahead to uphold his death sentence in order to “satisfy the collective conscience of the society”. Guru’s trial in lower court also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was indeed involved in the conspiracy to attack parliament. Here is a paragraph from an article written by human rights activist and celebrated author Arundhati Roy a day after Guru was hanged: “The trial in the fast-track court began in May 2002. The world was still convulsed by post 9/11 frenzy. The US government was gloating prematurely over its “victory” in Afghanistan. In the state of Gujarat, the massacre of Muslims by Hindu goon squads, helped along by the police and the state government machinery that had begun in late February, was still going on sporadically. The air was charged with communal hatred. And in the parliament attack case the law was taking its own course. At the most crucial stage of a criminal case, when evidence is presented, when witnesses are cross-examined, when the foundations of the argument are laid, Afzal Guru, locked in a high-security solitary cell, had no lawyer. The court-appointed junior lawyer did not visit his client even once in jail, he did not summon any witnesses in Guru’s defence, and he did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The judge expressed his inability to do anything about the situation.” Like his hanging, the trial was also swift and fast-tracked.

In contrast, Murugan, his wife and two others — all Hindu Tamils — were sentenced to death for killing Rajiv and 14 others in a suicide bombing. Successive governments never showed any haste in deciding on their mercy pleas. This week, 15 years after they were convicted, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence blaming the government for delay in deciding mercy petitions. In another case, Sikh terrorist Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar was sentenced to death for carrying out a bomb blast in 1993, killing nine. The government rejected his mercy petition in 2011 but is yet to execute him, possibly to avoid a backlash from the Sikh community.

One can speculate that the government dragged its feet on politically sensitive cases of Rajiv killers because the assassins enjoyed sympathy of Tamil Hindus. Guru’s case was handled with ruthless swiftness because he came from Kashmir, a state in conflict with Indian troops. More significantly, hanging of a Muslim terrorist brought cheers from Hindu nationalists and right-wing politicians. After all, the Supreme Court condemned Guru to die in order to satisfy the nation’s conscience and the government could not have denied Indian people a moment of national glory.

Source: http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/the-politics-of-executions-in-india-1.1295186 [accessed 24 April 2014]