Rajiv Gandhi killing: SC dismisses plea against convicts' release (Tamil Nadu)

09 MAY 2019 Last Updated at 7:12 PM | SOURCE: IANS

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the plea by families of those killed along with former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by a LTTE suicide bomber at Tamil Nadu's Sriperumbudur on May 21, 1991, opposing the release of the seven remaining convicts in the case.

A bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, said: "All aspects were covered in the earlier constitution bench verdict in the case and, therefore, nothing survives in the case. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of." As an outcome of the apex court's decision, Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit will take a decision regarding freeing the seven convicts held guilty in the assassination of the former PM and 16 others. On September 9, 2018, the Tamil Nadu Cabinet passed an order recommending the release of the convicts but the issue has been pending before the Governor, who is yet to take any decision, as the petition of the victims' families was pending in the top court.

When in 2014, the then Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa decided to free the convicts, who have already been in jail for 28 years after the apex court commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment, K. Ramasugandam, John Joseph, R. Mala, M. Samuvel Diraviyam, America V. Narayanan and S. Abbas filed a petition against it in the apex court. Senior advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Prabu Ramasubramanium, representing A.G. Perarivalan, who is one of the seven convicts, brought the CJI's attention to the victims' petition pending in the top court since 2014. They also argued that none of the convicts were ever made parties in the case, despite that their lives were directly linked, and as a consequence, the petition has become infructuous.

Agreeing with the argument, the court said: "Having considered the matter, we are of the view that no live issue remains for adjudication in view of the Constitution Bench judgement of this court." A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by then Chief Justice H.L. Dattu, had in 2015 upheld Centre's right to decide, on the remission of sentence of life convicts, specifically where the case was investigated by the Centre. It then allowed the three-judge bench to give the final word on the case. Sankaranarayanan contended the three-judge bench had already closed the case, and as a consequence, there is simply nothing left in the top court and the court agreed.

Following these verdicts in 2015, the Tamil Nadu government had written to the Centre in March 2016 proposing remission of sentence of these convicts as it expected the Centre would be in harmony on this issue. But, in April 2018, the Centre refused to budge from its previous stand opposing the release, saying the crime was unparalleled in the history of the country. The apex court took an opposite stand to the Centre in September 2018, and asked the Tamil Nadu Governor to decide the fate of the convicts.

Source: https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/rajiv-gandhi-killing-sc-dismisses-plea-against-convicts-release/1531408 (accessed on 30 May 2019)

Jailed 27 Years for Assassination He Knew Nothing About, Perarivalan Deserves a New Life (Tamil Nadu)

By

Jeya Rani

The CBI officer who took his confession, the judge who sentenced him to death and the family members of Rajiv Gandhi all believe the ends of justice are not served by keeping him in prison. Yet the Centre will not release him.

11/JUN/2018

“He did not know that the new life would not be given him for nothing, that he would have to pay dearly for it, that it would cost him great striving, great suffering. But that is the beginning of a new story – the story of the gradual renewal of a man, the story of his gradual regeneration, of his passing from one world into another, of his initiation into a new unknown life. That might be the subject of a new story, but our present story is ended.”

– Fyodor Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment

Perarivalan during a court appearance in Vellore in 2017. Credit: PTI

It is 27 years today since Perarivalan was taken away for ‘minor interrogation’ in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. It is 20 years since he was sentenced to death for procuring two nine-volt batteries. It is seven years since his mercy petition was rejected by the president of India. It is five years since investigating officer Thiyagarajan apologised for failing to record Perarivalan’s statement in which he says he was not aware of the purpose for which the batteries procured by him would be used. It is four years since the Supreme Court commuted Perarivalan’s death sentence, moving him slightly away from the shadow of the gallows. Four years have passed since the then chief minister J. Jayalalithaa informed the state assembly of her cabinet’s decision to release the seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, including Perarivalan, Santhan and Murugan. “They would be released if the Centre does not respond in the next three days” she had declared. Three years have passed since the Supreme Court ruled that the Centre had more powers in deciding on their release. It is seven years since Perarivalan demanded that the enquiry be monitored, claiming that the Multi Disciplinary Monitoring Agency had effectively failed in doing so and citing the 19-year long enquiry of the CBI. It has been a year since the Supreme Court on an appeal had directed the CBI to file a re-investigation report. It is three months since Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra have said that they have ‘forgiven the killers of their father.’ It has been a month since the state announced that it will release all the convicts if the Centre wished so. The case, which should have attained a logical end long ago, has been dragging out for years, months, days and moments now.

Some might have been tired themselves reading such a long paragraph. Can we also take a moment to contemplate what a nightmare it would have been for Perarivalan to live this horror for over 27 years now? For 27 years now, he has been like an insect trapped in a giant web. In the 1980s and ’90s, the whole of Tamil Nadu espoused the cause of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). For many youths, Prabhakaran was a hero. It was not uncommon for LTTE members to visit Tamil Nadu and stay at the places of their supporters. It was the time when Dravidian movements and parties were in close contact with the Tigers. The rationalist family of Perarivalan was no different. Such an association was not considered strange at that point of time. Yet the horror struck the life of Perarivalan – an ordinary young man with no significant political background or influence.

Flawed investigation

Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination on May 21, 1991 shocked the international community, pushing the Indian state to act. Several arrests were made to reassure a country that had begun to have doubts about the state of the nation’s security. Somehow arrests had to be made, however indiscriminate, to appease the fears of the collective conscience. The Central investigative officers targeted the supporters of the LTTE. Perarivalan was among the hundreds of such supporters arrested by the CBI. He had just completed a diploma in electronics and communication, and was staying at Periyar Thidal, the headquarters of the Dravida Kazhagam (DK) in Chennai to pursue higher education. His parents, Arputham Ammal and Kuyildasan, sent him off without any protest when the CBI said it was only a minor investigation. This was on June 11, 1991. He has now completed the equivalent of two life sentences in prison.

File Photo V. Thiyagarajan

After arresting hundreds in the case, the CBI filed cases against 41 of them at the special court designated to try cases under the (now repealed) Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) in Poonamallee, Chennai. The CBI filed a chargesheet against the LTTE, holding them responsible for the assassination. With three LTTE leaders including Prabhakaran absconding, and with 12 of the accused including suicide bomber Dhanu and Sivarasan dying at various points before the case was taken up, the trial court on January 28, 1998 sentenced the remaining 26 to death. Perarivalan was condemned to die only because he had procured batteries for Sivarasan. With the main culprits dead or absconding, anyone even remotely associated with them ended up getting sentenced to death. If the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case served as a model for criminal investigations and trials in India, half of the country’s population would end up in jail.

To this day, the investigation has not moved even an inch closer towards the real perpetrators of the crime. K. Ragothaman, who had headed the investigating team, admitted to not being able to find the person who made the belt bomb which Dhanu had used. He made the admissions in two different interviews given to Junior Vikatan on July 31, 2005 and Kumudham on August 10, 2005. This could and should be seen as a failure of the Indian investigative system. Yet the Indian government refuses to acknowledge this failure.

While confessing to buying two batteries for Sivarasan, Perarivalan had also stated that he was not aware of its intended purpose and that he was not aware of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. Investigating officer Thiyagarajan submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court last year admitting that he recorded only the first half of Perarivalan’s confession and had omitted the second part.

As The Hindu reported: “The CBI was not sure about the part played by Perarivalan, but his ignorance about the conspiracy was confirmed as the investigation into the assassination progressed, Mr. Thiagarajan said and referred to a wireless message of May 7, 1991 from mastermind Sivarasan to LTTE top operative ‘Pottu Amman’ in which the former said “our intention is not known to anybody except we three,” meaning himself, Subha and Dhanu, the suicide bomber. He said a “mere act” of providing nine volt batteries would not make Perarivalan privy to the conspiracy to kill Rajiv Gandhi. The wireless message makes it clear that Perarivalan was not taken into confidence.”

Despite Thiyagarajan’s plea on behalf of Perarivalan, the Supreme Court refused to review the judgment passed against since Thiyagarajan had long since retired. This was surprising since, as far as an investigation is concerned, a statement made by an investigating officer holds good as long as the enquiry is live. It hardly matters if he is still in office. Observers say it is not appropriate to reject Thiyagarajan’s statement in a case that is still being fought at various levels for over two decades.

Letter from judge who pronounced death sentence

On October 18, 2017, K .T. Thomas – the Supreme Court judge who was part of the bench that sentenced Perarivalan among others to death – wrote a letter to Sonia Gandhi noting that there were “serious flaws” in the CBI’s investigation in case, and that the probe had exposed “an unpardonable flaw” in the “Indian criminal justice system”.

Retd. Justice K.T. Thomas

“Perhaps the Union government would agree if you and Rahulji (if possible Priyankaji also) would write to the President of India conveying your willingness to grant remission to these persons who have already spent the longest period of their life in prison. It appears to me as a matter of human consideration which you alone can help. As the judge who passed the judgment against these persons, I now feel that I should address this letter to you so that you can show magnanimity in the situation,” the letter said. He also drew reference to the Centre’s decision in 1964 to set free Gopal Godse, brother of Nathuram Godse, the main accused in Gandhi assassination case, after 14 years of imprisonment. Former Supreme Court justice V.R. Krishna Iyer was among those who expressed his voice in favour of Perarivalan’s release.

Clearly, serious doubts have been expressed about the nature of the investigation by everyone involved – from the investigating officer, to the officer who recorded Perarivalan’s confessions and the Supreme Court judge who sentenced him to death. The families of those affected have come forward to forgive them. Yet if the Centre continues to be hesitant in releasing them, who is it seeking to appease?

A lifetime in jail

Despite the solidarity expressed by political parties, movements and civil society, it is Perarivalan who is single-handedly carrying on this fight against institutional injustice. In prison, he was subject to all kinds of torture, including electric shocks. It is only natural for any human being to lose all hope when in solitary confinement. But Perarivalan continued his education in jail. He completed a BCA and then an MCA. In all, he has managed to complete five certificate courses. From maintaining the prison library to guiding other inmates, Perarivalan gathered himself to pursue the long fight. He has even written a book, Thooku kottatadiyiliruthu oru muraiyeetu madal (‘A letter from the gallows’), arguing the case for his innocence.

One of the last photographs of Rajiv Gandhi, taken just before his assassination, by the freelance photographer Hari Babu, believed to have been tasked by the LTTE’s Sivarasan. Dhanu, the actual assassin, is standing behind the girl in a white shirt.

When the date for execution was fixed in 2011, Perarivalan and a few others filed a writ petition seeking a stay on execution in the high court. Ram Jethmalani and Colin Gonsalves appeared for them. A stay was granted. After this, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence awarded to three convicts. When Jayalalithaa decided to invoke the state’s powers to release the seven convicts, it led to a debate on the power of Centre on this issue. The apex court ruled that the Centre’s consent was essential. Now the matter is pending before a three-member bench.

After the SC ruling, in 1999, the Multi Disciplinary Monitoring Agency sought permission to explore the foreign conspiracy angle in the assassination. After permission was granted by the TADA court in Chennai, the MDMA had been submitting responses in sealed covers at periodic intervals. But the TADA court had not even opened the covers. When Perarivalan approached the court asking that the covers be opened, the court rejected his application. He went on appeal to the high court and also demanded that the MDMA expedite its investigation. Justice Mala refused to take up the case, saying only the Supreme Court had the authority to enquire into a case related to TADA. When the matter came up again in the Supreme Court in December 2016, Justice Ranjan Gogoi expressed surprise over the inordinate delay in the case and asked for the documents. While the case is pending in the Supreme Court, Perarivalan filed another petition seeking a stay on the punishment and also sought his release.

Meanwhile, actor Sanjay Dutt, who was sentenced to five years imprisonment in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blast case, was released earlier on the basis of good conduct. Perarivalan filed an RTI application to Pune’s Yerawada jail administration asking on what basis Sanjay Dutt was released. He received no response. He filed an appeal before the state information commission in Pune with no response yet.

Sanjay Dutt was arrested for possessing illegal weapons in 1993 when 257 persons were killed in serial bomb blasts. A TADA court in Mumbai sentenced him to six years imprisonment. Arrested under the Arms Act, which comes under Central government’s domain, Sanjay Dutt got the benefit of parole, commutation of sentence and early release. The state government exercised its power to release Sanjay Dutt in a case which required the Centre’s consent. Perarivalan’s question is this: Why does the Centre continue to impose restrictions in his case, which comes under IPC section 302 where the state has powers.

By closely following all related court proceedings, Perarivalan has managed to draw attention to his plight. In general, individuals accused of heinous crimes are objects of fear. Yet Perarivalan has become a household name in Tamil Nadu. He was only 19 when he was whisked away by the police for what they said was a minor investigation. When he came out on parole for the first time to meet his ailing father last year, he was 46.

Perarivalan’s mother, Arputham Ammal. Credit: YouTube

Perarivalan’s parents – more importantly his mother – have spent their entire lives fighting to secure the release of their son and for abolition of the death penalty. Arputham Ammal began her long walk for justice at the Malligai complex (the investigation office) seeking the release of her son soon after he was taken away. She has not stopped walking yet. There is not a single week when she fails to meet her son. She carries out all his instructions. If there is one voice that is raised resolutely against capital punishment anywhere in Tamil Nadu, it belongs to Arputham Ammal. After 27 years of imprisonment, what else does anyone want she asks.

Delay is a cruel punishment, perhaps more inhuman than capital punishment itself. The pain inflicted by the process of delay is deeper than the pain of losing one’s life at the gallows, especially when there are doubts over the robustness of the investigation. Is 27 years not long enough? Is Perarivalan’s life a game? How can it be called justice if it expects a man to exist and die in the dark alleys of prison? Former president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam has written about how people sentenced to death in India always come from disadvantaged socio-economic sections. Perarivalan is the symbol of the thousands of prisoners from marginalised sections wallowing in jail with no room for fair investigation. If Sanjay Dutt can be released and Perarivalan victimised, it is clear that the “collective conscience” being appeased is that of upper caste/upper class people. The injustice meted out to Perarivalan is a blot on the Indian government, its investigation agencies and the courts. By releasing him immediately, the administration can try to set right a historical blunder.

Let me take you back to Dostoyvesky now. To start a new life, Perarivalan should be allowed to leave prison finally. If civil society cannot ensure that, it loses the right to be called civil.

(Translated from the Tamil original by Kavitha Muralidharan)

Source: https://thewire.in/rights/jailed-27-years-for-assassination-he-knew-nothing-about-perarivalan-deserves-a-new-life (Accessed 25 December 2018)

Rajiv Gandhi assassination case: CBI seeks dismissal of Perarivalan’s plea (Tamil Nadu)

By PTI |Published: March 12, 2018 1:33:27 pm

On February 18, 2014, the top court had commuted the death sentence of Perarivalan to life imprisonment, along with that of two other prisoners - Santhan and Murugan - on grounds of a delay of 11 years in deciding their mercy pleas by the Centre. 

The CBI has told the Supreme Court that A G Perarivalan’s plea seeking a recall of its May 1999 judgment upholding his conviction in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case should be dismissed as it was devoid of any merits. In an affidavit filed in the apex court, the CBI’s Multi-Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA), probing the larger conspiracy aspect behind Gandhi’s assassination, has said that the role of convict A G Perarivalan in the conspiracy resulting in the killings of the former prime minister and others have already been upheld by the top court. The agency said that the application seeking a recall of May 11, 1999, apex court judgment was not maintainable since it seeks to reopen the whole matter on merits which cannot be permissible. The MDMA also said that Perarivalan’s petition seeking review of the apex court’s order upholding his conviction in the case has already been dismissed.

Perarivalan

“It’s, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this court may be pleased to dismiss the application for recall of judgment dated May 11, 1999, in the interest of justice and impose heavy cost 0n the applicant (Perarivalan) herein,” the agency said in its affidavit. The affidavit was filed in pursuance of the apex court’s January 24 direction asking the CBI to respond to Perarivalan’s plea seeking a recall of the May 1999 order upholding his conviction. The court had termed as “serious” and “debatable” the questions raised by Perarivalan. He has sought a recall of the apex court’s order, saying he was not aware of the conspiracy. Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on the night of May 21, 1991, at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu by a woman suicide bomber, identified as Dhanu, at a poll rally. Fourteen others, including Dhanu herself, were also killed.

Gandhi’s assassination was perhaps the first case of suicide bombing which had claimed the life of a high-profile leader. In its May 1999 order, the top court had upheld the death sentence of four convicts — Perarivalan, Murugan, Santham, and Nalini — in the assassination case. In April 2000, the Tamil Nadu governor commuted the death sentence of Nalini on the basis of the state government’s recommendation and an appeal by former Congress president and Rajiv Gandhi’s widow Sonia Gandhi.

On February 18, 2014, the top court had commuted the death sentence of Perarivalan to life imprisonment, along with that of two other prisoners – Santhan and Murugan – on grounds of a delay of 11 years in deciding their mercy pleas by the Centre. In his application, 45-year-old Perarivalan has said that he was held guilty of supplying two nine-volt batteries which were allegedly used in the improvised explosive device (IED) that killed Gandhi. The reasons due to which his conviction was sustained by the apex court would “vanish completely” in the wake of the affidavit by V Thiagarajan, a former CBI officer, it said. Thiagarajan, then a superintendent of police of CBI, had recorded Perarivalan’s confessional statement under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. The application claimed that in his affidavit the former CBI officer had stated that Perarivalan had expressly stated in his confessional statement that at the time of purchase of the batteries, he had absolutely no idea for what purpose these were going to be used.

While hearing Perarivalan’s plea earlier, the top court had observed that the probe by CBI’s Multi-Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) in the larger conspiracy aspect behind Gandhi’s assassination did not appear to have achieved “much headway” and could be “endless”. The MDMA, set up in 1998 on the recommendations of Justice M C Jain Commission of Inquiry which had probed the conspiracy aspect of Gandhi’s assassination, is headed by a CBI official and comprises officers from IB, RAW and Revenue Intelligence and other agencies.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-case-cbi-seeks-dismissal-of-perarivalans-plea-5094953/ (Accessed 24 December 2018)

Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict Perarivalan shifted to Puzhal prison for treatment (Tamil Nadu)

Akshaya Nath

December 14, 2017 

AG Perarivalan, a life convict in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, has been shifted to Puzhal prison in Chennai due to severe health issues. He was shifted from the Vellore Central Prison to facilitate treatment at Rajiv Gandhi government general hospital. Perarivalan was referred to the Government General hospital by the Vellore Medical College, where he was undergoing a treatment.

A.G. Perarivalan

Perarivalan is said to be suffering from hypertension, urological and orthopaedic issues. He, along with his family, had been pleading for medical attention since a long time. In 2015, Perarivalan underwent a treatment at Government general hospital. After the treatment, he will be transferred back to the Vellore prison. 

Perarivalan was taken into custody in 1991, and was given death sentence in May 1999. But, later in June 2014, Supreme Court converted his death penalty to life time imprisonment. Perarivalan's mother Arputhammal has been pleading for his release stating that Perarivalan is innocent and never knew of a plan to assassinate the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Source: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rajiv-gandhi-assasination-ag-perarivalan-puzhal-prison-chennai-1107145-2017-12-14 (Accessed 23 December 2018)

Judge who handed death to Rajiv Gandhi killers writes to Sonia: Show magnanimity (Tamil Nadu)

Written by Arun Janardhanan |Chennai |Updated: November 16, 2017 7:30:55 am 

Speaking to The Indian Express, Justice Thomas said there were “serious flaws” in the CBI’s investigation in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. 

Justice K.T.Thomas

The judge who headed the three-member Supreme Court bench that confirmed the punishment to the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case has written a letter to the former prime minister’s wife and Congress president Sonia Gandhi, requesting her to “show magnanimity” and convey her willingness for the remission of sentences of those who have been in jail since 1991. In the letter dated October 18, Justice (retd) K T Thomas pointed out that a decision to grant remission by the Tamil Nadu government in 2014 was opposed by the Centre — the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. “Perhaps the Union government would agree if you and Rahulji (if possible Priyankaji also) would write to the President of India conveying your willingness to grant remission to these persons who have already spent the longest period of their life in prison. It appears to me as a matter of human consideration which you alone can help. As the judge who passed the judgment against these persons I now feel that I should address this letter to you so that you can show magnanimity in the situation,” the letter stated.

Speaking to The Indian Express on Wednesday, Justice Thomas confirmed the contents of the letter and said that he was seeking “compassion” for the convicts. He said there were “serious flaws” in the CBI’s investigation in case, particularly related to the seizure of Rs 40 lakh in cash from the convicts, which led him to believe that the probe exposed “an unpardonable flaw” in the “Indian criminal justice system”. In the letter, Justice Thomas referred to the central government’s decision in 1964 to set free Gopal Godse, brother of main accused Nathuram Godse, who was charged with conspiracy in the Mahatma Gandhi assassination case after 14 years of imprisonment. Justice Thomas ended his letter with these lines: “I also feel that God Almighty will only be pleased by showing the magnanimity to those prisoners. I may be excused if I have done anything wrong in requesting you as above.”

On May 11, 1999, the bench headed by Justice Thomas, and including justices D P Wadhwa and Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, confirmed the conviction of seven persons in the case — four were sentenced to death, including Murugan alias Sriharan and his wife S Nalini, Santhan and A G Perarivalan, and three to imprisonment for life. In the case of Nalini, the only accused at the site of the blast that killed Rajiv Gandhi in Sriperumbudur on May 21, 1991, Justice Thomas gave a dissenting, but minority, verdict awarding imprisonment for life. In 2000, Nalini’s death sentence was commuted to life term.

In 2008, Priyanka Gandhi met Nalini at the Vellore jail and later described the visit as her “way of coming to peace with the violence and loss that I have experienced”. In 2014, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of the three other convicts to imprisonment for life. Speaking to The Indian Express, Justice Thomas said he has often wondered whether the bench handed down a “severe punishment” because the convicts were linked to a high-profile assassination. “If it was not a high-profile case, what would have been the outcome? I don’t have answers,” he said. Describing his decision to seek Sonia Gandhi’s intervention in favour of the convicts as “tough”, Justice Thomas said, “They are considered as the killers of Rajiv Gandhi. But do not mistake me, I am requesting her to have compassion at this stage,” he said. ”We had such values under Panditji (Jawaharlal Nehru), too, in the release of Gopal Godse after 14 years of life imprisonment inspite of conspiracy charges he faced in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi,” Justice Thomas said. Gopal Godse was released in October 1964, five months after Nehru’s death, before being re-arrested for another year.

A.G. Perarivalan, one of the seven convicted in Rajiv Gandhi killing. (File Photo)

Referring to the case of Perarivalan, Justice Thomas said it brought to fore another aspect of the assassination case that generated intense debate over using the confession of one accused against another. ”Under the conventional Evidence Act, a confession can be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence. But the two other judges on my bench did not agree, they insisted that we should use it as substantive evidence. To prevent the laying of such a wrong law, I called them to my home where we had several rounds of debates in which I tried to convince them. But the majority view in the judgment considered the confession statement as substantive evidence as it was under TADA [Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act]. Later, many senior jurists called me to say that the majority order laid a wrong law in the case,” he said.

In 2013, Justice Thomas had raised the question of double jeopardy in the case and said that hanging three convicts after 24 years — at the time — would be unconstitutional. Referring to the CBI probe in the case, Justice Thomas said he was “agitated” during the trial over “serious flaws” by the Special Investigation Team, especially when the agency claimed ignorance about the source of Rs 40 lakh seized from the accused. “The main accused were all from Sri Lanka. I told the then solicitor general Altaf Ahmed that I can understand the seizure of a few Sri Lankan currency but Rs 40 lakh was such a huge amount in that period. That means there were financially powerful forces behind those who were arrested. I asked him whether he investigated the origin of that cash. After a brief chat with the investigation chief D R Karthikeyan, he sought time to reply. The next day, Ahmed told the court that investigators couldn’t find the source of the cash,” said Justice Thomas.

“I was upset over these serious flaws and shared my concerns with the two others on the bench. They suggested that we shouldn’t criticise the CBI in the final order, considering their efforts. Then I suggested a condition: no criticism or kudos for CBI in the final order. They agreed. After drafting the final orders, we exchanged the drafts for reading. But on the day of the judgment, I was shocked to hear Justice D P Wadhwa’s judgment praising CBI officer Karthikeyan wholeheartedly. That made headlines… sending out a message that the Supreme Court was fully happy with the probe,” he said.

“Since I was the senior judge, he read out his draft only after mine. If I knew about changes he brought in his order, I would have corrected mine, too, to stand by my observations,” said Justice Thomas. When contacted in Kolkata by The Indian Express over phone, Justice (retd) Wadhwa declined to comment on Justice Thomas’s version. After his bench’s verdict, which also released 19 other convicts in the case, Justice Thomas said that he read an interview of one of those freed in The Week magazine.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/judge-who-handed-death-to-rajiv-gandhi-killers-writes-to-sonia-show-magnanimity-4939399/ (Accessed 23 December 2018)

Man jailed in Rajiv Gandhi killing as I hid facts, says ex-CBI officer (Tamil Nadu)

TNN | Nov 15, 2017, 01.44 AM IST 

By Amit Anand Choudhary

NEW DELHI: Almost 18 years after Perarivalan was convicted as a plotter in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, a former CBI officer involved in the investigation has told the Supreme Court that the convict did not know of the plan to kill the former PM. V Thiagarajan also said Perarivalan’s statement about not being aware of the plot was not recorded in his confession,which was heavily relied upon by courts to convict him, as this would have favoured the defendant. Now, Thiagarajan has filed an affidavit in the SC and explained the reason for the “omission”, and virtually supported Perarivalan’s plea for remission of the sentence. “It is humbly stated that accused Perarivalan’s statement that he was totally in the dark as to the purpose for which the batteries were purchased was not recorded by me, because it would be an exculpatory statement and hence the whole purpose of recording the confessional statement would be lost. 

A.G. Perarivalan

Further, I did not deem it fit to record this exculpatory statement because the investigation regarding the bomb was pending at the time of recording the confessional statement,” he said in his affidavit. In an interview with TOI in 2013, Thiagarajan had said Perarivalan, in his confession before him, admitted that he purchased the batteries. “But he said he did not know the batteries he bought would be used to make the bomb. As an investigator, it put me in a dilemma. It wouldn’t have qualified as a confession statement without his admission of being part of the conspiracy. There I omitted apart of his statement and added my interpretation. I regret it,” he said, adding that if he had a chance, he would have corrected the mistake. 

Thiagarajan justified his decision to file the affidavit, saying he had grown concerned at Perarivalan languishing in jail with declining prospects of release. The 1981-batch IPS officer had recorded the confessional statements of Perarivalan alias Arivu in 1991, wherein he was said to have admitted that he had purchased two batteries and handed them to Sivarasan — the leader of the assassination squad — to be used to detonate the bombs to kill the former PM. Perarivalan also stated he was not aware of the purpose for which the batteries were bought and was in the dark about the assassination plan. . “We were not sure at that time about the part played by Perarivalan in the conspiracy but as the investigation progressed there was confirmation about the ignorance of the said accused relating to conspiracy... Hence a mere fact of providing the nine-volt battery in the first week of May 1991 would not make him privy and party to the said conspiracy. 

This internal evidence also makes it clear that the accused was not taken into confidence about the assassination,” Thiagarajan said. The officer’s statements is contradictory to the SC verdict, which had, in 1998, held “we therefore reach the conclusion that A18 (Arivu) was actively involved in the criminal conspiracy to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi”. Perarivalam was about 20 when arrested in mid-1991. He was initially awarded the death penalty, but it was commuted to life imprisonment.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/man-jailed-in-rajiv-gandhi-killing-as-i-hid-facts-says-ex-cbi-officer/articleshowprint/61650838.cms (Accessed 23 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)

‘Death Penalty Is Unconstitutional’

The former Supreme Court judge says the death penalty has to go from our statute books.
ANURADHA RAMAN INTERVIEWS K.T. THOMAS

Last year, former Supreme Court judge K.T. Thomas created ripples in the judicial system when he said the death penalty to Rajiv Gandhi’s three killers would amount to a judicial murder and sought a review of the judgement that he had pronounced in 1999. His reasoning was the three prisoners had already spent 22 years in prison in the shadow of death and a death penalty would have amounted to a double sentence—life imprisonment, which is for 14 years, and death. In an interview to Anuradha Raman, Justice Thomas says the death penalty has to go from our statute books.



Justice KT Thomas
Why do you want the death penalty abolished now when, as a judge, you had the choice of not awarding it?
I took an oath to interpret the law and this oath had nothing to do with my predilection. I conferred the death penalty in six cases and in all, I was discharging my duty as a judge. But I do feel that death penalty should be abolished. Punishment must be similar to that of a father who punishes his child--with the objective of reforming him. The death sentence is not a deterrent. By giving death you are giving away the chance to improve the prisoner.

So, do you regret awarding death penalty in the six cases?
I was going by the statute books. The question is, how will you rectify a wrong? There is always a five per cent doubt, no matter what evidence is produced and argued upon. That’s the percentage of human error judges have to deal with. How will you ever rectify human errors in cases of death penalty?

What’s your reaction to those who say it is a deterrent?

I did a study in Travancore district in Kerala. Before the death sentence in the law books there were fewer murders. After it was introduced in the 1950s, murders also increased. The death penalty is not a deterrent. It is an untested, unresolved myth and I believe the death penalty is unconstitutional. The gov­ernment has to decide under CrPC provisions whether to keep it or not.

Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article/Death-Penalty-Is-Unconstitutional/292799 [last accessed 06.02.2015]

Tamil Nadu can remit Rajiv Gandhi killers' sentence only after Centre's nod

Monday, 17 November 2014 - 7:45am IST | Place: New Delhi | Agency: dna

Prabhati Nayak Mishra 

Supporting the Centre, which had approached the supreme court against the Tamil Nadu government's move to release seven convicts after granting them remission in former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi's assassination case, the Madhya Pradesh government told the apex court that the state government needs to consult the Centre when granting remission to convicts in cases probed by CBI. However, the state made its stand clear that consultation does not mean 'concurrence.'

Filing an affidavit, MP government told the top court that the Parliament has made it very clear that "the state government should seek mere opinion or advice of the Centre, if the offence has been investigated by the Delhi special police establishment or by any other agency empowered to make an investigation into an offence under any Central Act…" The CBI was created by the Centre under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. 

It also said: "The offence involves misappropriation or destruction of or damage to any property belonging to the Central government or was committed by a person in the service of the Central government while acting or purporting to act while discharging of his official duty."

In February, this year, the then Jayalaithaa government in Tamil Nadu had decided to grant remission to all seven convicts, including three, whose death penalty was commuted by the supreme court on grounds of delay in execution, and had given three days time to the Centre to respond to the state's decision.

Tamil Nadu's move followed the supreme court's February 18 verdict commuting the death sentences of AG Perarivalan alias Arivu, Sriharan alias Murugan and T Suthentiraraja alias Santhan on grounds of delay in execution. Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan were awarded the death penalty in 2001 over the killing of former PM Rajiv Gandhi, who was died in a suicide bombing on May 21, 1991, at a political rally in Tamil Nadu.

Four others were given life terms in the same case. They are Sriharan's wife Nalini, B Robert Payas, S Jayakumar and P Ravichandran. Tamil Nadu claims that the state has the power to grant remission under the CrPc provision. The Centre, which was then led by the UPA government, challenged the state government's order. Keeping aside political differences, the NDA government also on Sunday maintained the UPA regime's stand in court. Tamil Nadu says that the state has powers to release the convicts. The Centre demurred, arguing that the convicts could not be released without its nod as the CBI had probed the case.

Case complications

In its referral order in April, the bench framed the issues which are whetherlife term, when commuted from death penalty, meant imprisonment for the rest of life, which could not be remitted by the appropriate government after the convicts spend a minimum 14 years in jail. The question is also that if the president grants or rejects the commutation of death penalty, could the states remit the life sentences after the prescribed minimum period. Also, there is a complication in deciding Which government, the state or Centre, has the power to remit sentences of convicts in the Rajiv assassination case.

Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-tamil-nadu-can-remit-rajiv-gandhi-killers-sentence-only-after-centre-s-nod-2035826 [last accessed 06.02.2015]

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]

Don't Politicise Rajiv Murder Case Verdict: Convict's Mother

By PTI - CHENNAI Published: 20th April 2014 07:17 PM

Last Updated: 20th April 2014 07:17 PM

The mother of one of the seven life convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, whose death sentence was commuted to life by the Supreme Court, today appealed to political parties and leaders not to politicise the issue relating to the verdict on their release. The comments of Arputhammal, mother of A G Perarivalan, come a day after DMK chief M Karunanidhi said that Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam's indication that verdict on a petition to release of all seven lifers would be given in a week has led to fears of a "political fallout" in Tamil Nadu ahead of April 24 Lok Sabha polls.

"With polling scheduled on April 24, Justice Sathasivam saying that an important verdict will be pronounced before his retirement date of April 25 has led to fears among many if it will lead to a political fallout and created a big debate among advocates," Karunanidhi had said. Talking to reporters here, Arputhammal said, "All I request is not to politicise the issue. We are hoping for a good verdict from Supreme Court later this week. What we fear is that due to such comments, it may get delayed." She has written a letter to Karunanidhi requesting him to refrain from making any comments on the case as the verdict was expected to come later this week.

"As we are expecting the release of my son who is serving jail term for 23 years, we fear due to your comments, it may get delayed further. I humbly request you not to make such political statements," she said in the letter. On February 20, the apex court stayed the state government's order on the release of the convicts, saying there have been procedural lapses on the part of the state. Besides Perarivalan, Santhan and Murugan, the husband of Nalini, earned a major reprieve from Supreme Court which spared them from the gallows. The Tamil Nadu government subsequently decided to set free all the seven convicts in the case. 

Source: http://www.newindianexpress.com/elections/news/Dont-Politicise-Rajiv-Murder-Case-Verdict-Convicts-Mother/2014/04/20/article2179574.ece [accessed on 24 April 2014]

Perarivalan plea on researcher’s visit to prison declined

CHENNAI, August 1, 2013

S. VIJAY KUMAR

The death-row convict claims that information is crucial to defend his case

The plea of A.G. Perarivalan alias Arivu, death row convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, seeking details of a research scholar’s visit to Vellore Central Prison in 2011 has been declined by the State government. Though the convict claimed that the information was crucial to defend his case, the Prison Department turned down his plea filed under the Right to Information Act stating that the details sought were not available in jail records.

In repeated petitions sent to the prison authorities in the last two years, Perarivalan referred to the visit of Reena Mary George to the prison on April 13, 2011, in connection with her work on death row convicts.

Seeking copies of the permission letters given to the researcher, he wanted to know on record whether Ms. George met the three condemned prisoners–Murugan alias Sriharan, Suthenthiraraja alias Santhan and him (the petitioner).

Confirming that Ms. George had visited the prison and spent about four hours, the Public Information Officer replied that there was no record of her interview details in the prison.

In his appeal, copies of which were made available to The Hindu, Perarivalan argued that it was a well known procedure that a written permission was given to those intending to visit prison for research activities and accused the PIO of giving false and misleading information.

After the second appeal was also turned down by the Additional Director-General of Prisons, who said prisoners could not be given access to prison records as per Rule 473 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, Perarivalan sent an appeal to the State Information Commission praying that his petitions be heard expeditiously and he be granted personal appearance to present his case.

However, the State government wrote to Perarivalan in the last week of June this year stating that it was not feasible to comply with his request. “He also sought details of mercy petitions processed by the Cabinet and referred to the Governor. The information cannot be shared with the petitioner under the provisions of the RTI Act,” an official in the Home Department said.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/perarivalan-plea-on-researchers-visit-to-prison-declined/article4974703.ece?homepage=true [accessed on 1st August 2013]