Abolish Death Penalty India: Vellore Central Prison

Sunday, December 23, 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)

Thursday, August 1, 2013

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]

The Death Penalty Scenario in India

India is one of 193 countries that retains the death penalty. Some judges have delivered landmark verdicts upholding the rights of death row prisoners, while debates continue advocating abolition or reform of sentencing policies. The Indian government remains committed to retention, asserting executions occur only in “rarest of rare” cases. The death penalty applies to crimes including murder, kidnapping, terrorism, desertion, inducement to suicide of a minor or mentally-retarded person, and in certain cases of rape. Outrage over child rape and murder has intensified these discussions. After an unofficial eight-year moratorium, the government executed Ajmal Kasab (Mumbai attacks) in 2012 and Afzal Guru (Parliament attack) in 2013, both covertly and immediately after mercy petitions were rejected. Prior to this, Dhananjoy Chatterjee was executed in 2004 after 13 years on death row. Following these, many mercy petitions have been rejected, creating fear among death row convicts. Courts continue to hand down death sentences at an increasing rate. Empirical studies highlight the plight of death row prisoners. The India Exclusion Report 2017-18 found fair trial rights largely denied, with convicts often marginalized by caste, religion, poverty, and education. The Death Penalty Research Project (2015) documented socio-economic profiles and experiences of death row prisoners. Dr. Reena Mary George’s studies (2014, 2009) emphasized poverty, social exclusion, and dignity as central to death row experiences, and examined the human rights impact of the penalty. According to the National Crime Records Bureau 2015, 101 prisoners were on death row, with many sentences commuted to life. The “rarest of rare” doctrine introduced by the Supreme Court in the 1980s has not substantially limited death sentences, which have increased over the decades. Justice Joseph (2018) reaffirmed the Bachan Singh judgment but urged restriction of the death penalty to only those cases meeting its criteria. While updating the blog and conducting my own empirical studies, I observed the heinous nature of the crimes that were committed and thought about the families, about their loss, about the victims who for no fault of their own died. If I lost my relative or a dear friend, would I still oppose death penalty and would I still advocate to abolish the death sentence? Having worked in the criminal justice system and also having the seen the other side, where often it is the marginalized, vulnerable and oppressed who are on death row makes me want to advocate for abolition of this punishment. Victims should definitely get justice for their loss, for their pain. No one should escape the rule of law. As long as humanity exists; crime will exist. Should we not re-consider our sentencing policies? Reena Mary George