Rajiv Gandhi assassination case: SC rejects Nalini's plea for release from prison

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Oct 27, 2014, 01.50PM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the plea of S Nalini, undergoing life imprisonment in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, challenging the law mandating the Centre's approval for her release and that of six other convicts. "Sorry, we are not interested," a bench comprising Chief Justice HL Dattu and justices MB Lokur and AK Sikri said.

Nalini had challenged Section 435(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code which mandates the state government to consult the Centre before premature release of a convict if the case was investigated by the CBI. 

She has been in jail for the last 23 years and undergoing life imprisonment after her death sentence was commuted. She was sentenced to death by the trial court in the case on January 28, 1998. Nalini's death sentence was commuted to life term by the Tamil Nadu Governor on April 24, 2000. "Though 2200 life convicts who had put in less than 10 years of imprisonment were prematurely released by the Tamil Nadu Government during the last about 15 years, she was excluded from consideration for premature release only on the ground that her offence was investigated by the CBI i.e. her case was covered by Section 435(1)(a) CrPC. The said section is unconstitutional," her petition said.

The Centre had earlier contended that the Tamil Nadu government can't release the convicts without its approval and had derailed the state government's decision to release them. After the apex court had commuted the death sentence of convicts Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan, the Tamil Nadu government on February 19 had proposed to remit the sentences of all seven lifers, including the three, and release them.

The decision of the state government to release the convicts was challenged by the Centre before the Supreme Court which had stayed the decision and referred the matter to a Constitution Bench. The court had on February 20 stayed the decision to release of three convicts--Murugan, Santhan and Arivu-- whose death sentence was commuted to life term by it on February 18 in the case, saying there had been procedural lapses on the part of the state government on the decision to release them.

The apex court later on had also stayed release of convicts Nalini, Robert Pious, Jayakumar and Ravichandran in the case. Santhan, Murugan and Arivu are currently lodged in the Central Prison, Vellore and they are in jail since 1991. The other four are also undergoing life sentence for their role in Rajiv Gandhi's assassination on May 21, 1991 in Sriperumbudur.

(With inputs from PTI)

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rajiv-Gandhi-assassination-case-SC-rejects-Nalinis-plea-for-release-from-prison/articleshow/44946968.cms [last accessed 06.02.2015]

Indian Supreme Court refuses to release 7 assassins of former PM Rajiv Gandhi

Source:Xinhua Published: 2014-4-25 16:16:12

India's Supreme Court Friday refused to release seven assassins of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi from prison, and referred the case to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

A bench, headed by Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, also framed seven questions to be addressed by the Constitution Bench, including whether after commutation of the death sentence into life in jail, they can be released, and whether the central government or the Tamil Nadu government can do so.

The seven assassins are currently lodged in a jail in the southern state of Tamil Nadu and each has spent more than 20 years in prison.

In February, the Supreme Court had commuted the death sentences of three of the convicts -- Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan -- who were on death row, citing an inordinate delay in disposing of their mercy petitions by the Indian president.

The other four assassins in the case have been serving life imprisonment.

After the apex court ruling, Tamil Nadu's Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa had said all the seven would be released, compelling the central government to challenge the order.

"The release of the killers of a former prime minister of India and our great leader, as well as several other innocent Indians, would be contrary to all principles of justice," Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had said in response to Jayalalithaa's announcement.

Rajiv Gandhi, who was India's prime minister from 1984 to 1989, was killed by Dhanu, a Sri Lankan suicide bomber from the now- defunct Tamil Tigers, during an election rally at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu on May 21, 1991.

Some 26 people were convicted in the case in 1998 by a special court which sentenced all of them to death. But, in 1999, the Supreme Court confirmed the death sentences of four -- Murugan, Santhan, Perarivalan and Nalini.

However, Nalini's death sentence was commuted to life in jail, following the intervention of Rajiv Gandhi's widow and ruling Congress chief Sonia Gandhi, as she gave birth to a girl in jail.

Source: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/856820.shtml#.U2PuGfmSwrU [accessed on 2nd May 2014]]

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]

Rajiv’s Killers Versus Afzal Guru

SRINAGAR, WEDNESDAY, 25 RABI-AL-THANI 1435 ; 26 FEBRUARY 2014 CE 

- RIYAZ AHMAD

The contrast also compares the two democracies, Tamil Nadu, J&K.

There were two developments that riveted our attention last week. And the mayhem in the state Assembly was not one of them despite the injury to a PDP legislator or the slapping of a marshal by one of the party’s legislators. One, was the commutation of the death sentence of the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s killers to the life imprisonment by the Apex Court. And second the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha’s decision to release all the seven of them and the ensuing confrontation with centre. The clash made for a gripping political drama and heady television. But Kashmir was hooked for a different reason. 

One, that the killers of a former prime minister of India and a member of the ruling dynasty who were on death row for the past eleven years were granted a due recourse to law and their plea accepted by the court. Second, Tamil Nadu CM dramatically deciding to set them free and setting a three day deadline for the centre to respond. 

New Delhi went into a tizzy, objecting to the release. Supreme Court stayed the move but that was not what was important. The important thing was that even the killers of a prime minister of India, if they are not from Kashmir, can expect not only a fairer process of justice but even clemency with a Chief Minister’s support to boot. Contrast this with what happened to Muhammad Afzal Guru who, by Apex Court’s own order had a circumstantial link to the parliament attack. So he had to die to “satisfy the collective consciousness” of India. He was pulled out of the death row queue where he was at around number 30 and sent to gallows without his family getting a wind of it. He was told about the rejection of his mercy petition by the president only an hour before his death. And his mortal remains continue to be withheld from his family. 

And all the political class in the state has behaved as if they could do little about it. More so, the Chief Minister whose response has veered from publicly complaining about his advise against hanging being ignored by the centre to being kept in dark about the hanging itself. And ever since CM may have issued statements against the hanging, warned of a fallout in Kashmir and Afzal’s long term iconization for the new generation of Kashmiri youth, even seeking his mortal remains but there has never been an occasion when he has made us confident of his will or ability to do something about it. 

Unlike Tamil Nadu government, his government couldn’t get up the courage to pass the resolution on Afzal and nor does his government build a pressure or even make a case for the return of Afzal’s mortal remains. The truth is that behind the CM’s Afzal outrage – honestly felt or politically dictated – there has been a little veiled squeamishness about being too strongly identified with him. But no such defensiveness for Jayalalitha. Not also for Badal, who has BJP as an ally. Rajiv’s and Beant Singh’s killers respectively are not only an opportunity for political posturing and playing to their constituencies but also for some credible action which forces centre to rethink and revise its decision. 

The point here is not to fan an already deep sense of victimhood in Kashmir but to highlight a persisting democratic paradox in the state: the inability of the so called democratic representatives to adequately represent, respond or even play to the legitimate grievances and sentiments of their people. True, mainstream politics in the state cannot project the sentiment of Azadi but this was also never expected of them. Majority of the people who vote for them are conscious of this fact. But what they want from them is not only to deliver the good governance but also fight for their interests and rights and take an unambiguous stand when New Delhi seems to have discriminated against the state. 

And not only talk about it in no uncertain terms but be seen to act to undo it. But what we get is either apathy, a cryptic silence, may be sometimes a statement or two expressing an opinion or simply a show of silence. If anything, the case of Rajiv’s killers exposes the democracy in the state for what it is always suspected to be – a government by the people but obliged to if not representative of New Delhi. 

Source: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2014/Feb/26/rajiv-s-killers-versus-afzal-guru-8.asp [accessed 24 April 2014]

Death row convicts’ rights must be respected

Updated Tuesday, March 4th 2014 at 23:57 GMT +3 By PRAVIN BOWRY 

Last week the Court of Appeal upheld the death sentence in a murder case appeal, as it has done time and again, knowing only too well that the sentence of death in reality will never be carried out. The rights of death row convicts has surfaced once again in a highly publicised case in India and which case is likely to have a great bearing to the Kenyan legal scenario. Three Indians were convicted for the murder of the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991, 23 years ago. Three successive presidents refused, neglected or omitted to deal with the Pleas of Mercy made under the Presidential Prerogative of Mercy. 

In a landmark ruling the Supreme Court of India set aside the sentence of death and substituted it with life imprisonment and enunciated interesting legal dicta. The Supreme Court held, “In India even an accused has a de facto protection under the Constitution and it is the Court’s duty to shield and protect the same. Therefore, we make it clear that when the judiciary interferes in such matters it does not really interfere with the power exercised under Article 72/161 but only to uphold the de facto protection provided by the Constitution to every convict including death convicts.” 

It continued to say, “Certainly, a series of Constitutional Benches of this court have upheld the Constitutional validity of the death sentence in India over the span of decades but these judgments in no way take away the duty to follow the due procedure established by law in the execution of the sentence like death sentence passed lawfully, the execution of the sentence must also be in consonance with the constitutional mandate and not in violation of the constitutional principles.” And with that the Supreme Court commuted the death sentences of the convicts to life imprisonment. The decision also addressed a number of issues pertaining to the treatment of death row convicts. It made it obligatory that where the death sentence is enforced a post-mortem examination must be carried out and reports made available to the families of the deceased. 

The issue of the mental state of the convicts was also addressed. Regular mental health evaluations on all death row convicts and appropriate medical care to those in need should be given. Execution notice The court stated that the mental health of the convict must always be considered to determine whether they are in fit physical and mental condition to be executed. The convicts also have to be furnished with copies of their court papers and judgments since these documents are important in the preparation of the convicts’ appeals and mercy petitions. The court also pointed out that the convict must be notified in writing of rejection of a mercy petition; and that a copy of the rejection must be made available to the convict and a minimum 14 days execution notice be given to the convict and the family. 

Nearer home, the Ugandan case of Kigula and others v the Attorney General lifts the lid on the amount of human suffering that can be caused by delayed justice. In the Ugandan case, some 417 death row prisoners petitioned a Ugandan constitutional court for, among others, a declaration that inordinate delay in executing their death sentences violated their constitutional protection against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. One of the petitioners, Ben Ogwang, had been on death row for 20 years. In his uncontroverted evidence, he gave a grim picture of life on death row. He said that death row prisoners lived in cold and overcrowded cells. They urinated and defacated in open chamber pots in the cells in the presence of their colleagues. They also took their meals of poor quality, quantity and timing in these same cells. The prisoners, he further said, could not sleep because the lights in the cells were left on all nights. This left them in a permanent state of tiredness, which virtually reduced them to walking zombies. He said the prisoners were not informed of when an execution would take place. They kept guessing. Consequently, if a guard came and stopped outside a condemned prisoner’s door, the prisoner immediately felt his bowels open up and ended up soiling himself. When the prisoners got sick, he said, the hospital staff were reluctant to give them medical attention. They said since the prisoners were going to be hanged anyway, there was no need to waste scarce drugs on them.

As a result, he said, many prisoners died of diseases related to mental and physical anguish, physical hardship, poor feeding, depression and many other causes. The court found that the circumstances indeed amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The rights of death row or even life sentence convicts in Kenya will undoubtedly resurface in legal circles and Commonwealth jurisprudence is likely to have greater application. Matters of the death penalty, commuting the same and the Commissioner of Prisons failing to carry out the death sentence for over 25 years are matters which are likely to be argued soon in a constitutional court. It is a pity the Court of Appeal and indeed the Supreme Court have opted not to deal with the matters despite them being of great public interest. 

Source: http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/mobile/?articleID=2000106100&story_title=death-row-convicts-rights-must-be-respected&pageNo=2 [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]

Rajiv killers join Bhullar to question rejection of mercy pleas

NEW DELHI: The three condemned prisoners in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case joined Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, sentenced to death in the 1993 Delhi bomb blast case, in arguing before the Supreme Court that pendency of their mercy pleas for over decade with the President was a good ground for commutation of their capital sentence to life term.

Though the three - Santhan, Arivu and Periarvalan - have moved the Madras High Court against the President's decision to reject their mercy pleas and have secured a stay on their execution, their counsel Ram Jethmalani on Wednesday requested the apex court to permit him to argue in Bhullar's pending case as its outcome would affect the HC decision.

A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya asked Bhullar's counsel K T S Tulsi and additional solicitor general Harin Raval whether they had any objection to Jethmalani arguing in this case and permitted the intervention when both the counsel said they did not have any problem.

The rejection of mercy pleas of Bhullar and the three in Rajiv assassination case has seen unprecedented political activity. While Tamil Nadu assembly passed a resolution requesting commutation of death penalty for the three condemned prisoners, there has been considerable support from the Sikh community for commutation of Bhullar's death penalty to life imprisonment.

Tulsi argued that the government was acting arbitrarily in deciding mercy pleas and cited recently obtained RTI information revealing that in some cases, the mercy pleas were decided the day it was made before the governors and in some cases in two months. "Here is a person who was made to wait on death row for 11 years and reduced to a mental wreck," Tulsi said.

Bhullar, an alleged Khalistan Liberation Force terrorist, was sentenced to death for masterminding the car bomb attack on then Youth Congress president Maninderjit Singh Bitta which left 9 persons dead just a stone's throw away from Parliament on September 10, 1993. The death sentence awarded to Bhullar attained judicial finality when on March 12, 2003, the apex court dismissed his curative petition. Bhullar had filed a mercy plea before the President on January 14, 2003.

Bhullar's wife Navneet Kaur has also filed a petition challenging rejection of mercy plea and said, "My husband has become mentally retarded on account of more than 5,700 days of delay in deciding the mercy petition which has inflicted such inhuman penalty and torture in his mind that he has become mentally retarded."

In response to Bhullar's petition, the Centre in its counter-affidavit said long pendency of mercy pleas of condemned prisoners, some for over a decade, was no ground for altering the decision taken on it by the President in exercise of her constitutional powers.

It said the Constitution prescribed no time frame for the President to decide mercy peas of condemned prisoners and that courts had no power to prescribe a deadline on this issue. "Pendency of the mercy petition cannot be said to be an act of cruelty or an act which adds to the suffering of the prisoner. In fact, it is the pendency of the mercy petition which has given a lease of life to the prisoner," the Centre had said.

Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rajiv-killers-join-Bhullar-to-question-rejection-of-mercy-pleas/articleshow/10674054.cms
Date : 10.11.2011

Rajiv assassins' plea should not be moved out of Tamil Nadu: Govt

New Delhi: The Tamil Nadu government today opposed in the Supreme Court a plea to shift out of the Madras High Court the appeals of three Rajiv Gandhi assassins, challenging their death penalty on account of an 11-year delay in deciding their mercy petition by the President.

Tamil Nadu's Additional Advocate General Gurukrishna Kumar opposed the plea for transfer of the three convicts' appeals out of the state High Court, denying allegations made before the apex court that the atmosphere in the state was too "vitiated and surcharged" to hold a free and fair hearing in the case.

Kumar also questioned the locus standi of petitioner L K Venkat, seeking the apex court's direction for transfer of the case out of Madras High Court to the Supreme Court.

Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, appearing for the three convicts on death row, also opposed the transfer plea on the ground that Article 139A (relating to transfer of certain cases) gives power only to the Attorney General of India or the aggrieved parties to file a petition for transfer.


Venkat's counsel L Nandkumar, however, submitted that a free and fair hearing of the proceedings cannot be held in the Madras High Court owing to the "surcharged, hostile and vitiated" atmosphere prevailing there.

After hearing the arguments by various parties, a bench of justices G S Signhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya asked the state to file a counter affidavit within a week and posted the matter for further hearing to October 19.

The bench asked Tamil Nadu government to file a counter affidavit on the plea for shifting appeals of the three condemned prisoners in the assassination case out of the state high court.

"Though the request made by the state additional advocate general is unreasonable, we are granting time for filing the counter affidavit," the bench said.

The judges were irked at Tamil Nadu government's request as it had failed to reply till date to its September 15 notice on plea.

On a petition by the three death row convicts, the Madras High Court had earlier stayed their hanging and had issued notices to the Centre and the Tamil Nadu government.

The three convicts - Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan alias Arivu - had challenged the sentence despite the same having been upheld earlier by the apex court and the President having rejected their mercy pleas subsequently.

Venkat subsequently had moved the apex court seeking transfer of their appeals out of the state high court and the apex court had issued notices on the petition to the state.

Venkat had alleged in his plea that the convicts' appeals challenging their death sentences cannot be heard in a free and fair atmosphere in the state as several supporters of the banned LLTE were interfering with the functioning of the judiciary by raising slogans in support of the convicts.



Source : http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/rajiv-assassins-plea-should-not-be-moved-out-of-tamil-nadu-govt-139995

Former Indian PM Gandhi's killers to hang

NEW DELHI — India's president has rejected mercy pleas from three men convicted of the 1991 assassination of then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, paving the way for their execution, an official told AFP on Thursday.

The appeal, sent to President Pratibha Patil by the men -- Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan, all known by single names -- was their last hope of escaping the hangman's noose.

All three belonged to Sri Lanka's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) militant group, which was accused of plotting the May 21, 1991 murder of Gandhi by a female suicide bomber.

Gandhi had become India's youngest ever prime minister after his mother, former premier Indira Gandhi, was assassinated in October 1984, and ruled until losing an election five years later.

The shredded clothes and the shoes he was wearing when he was killed while on an election tour in the southern of the country 20 years ago remain on display in a museum in the Indian capital.

"The rejection (of the clemency petitions) happened last week after the president returned from a foreign tour," presidential spokeswoman Archana Datta told AFP.

Although the Supreme Court upheld the original death penalty verdict for the three convicts it later commuted the capital punishment to life in prison for Nalini Sriharan, an Indian Tamil woman who was also convicted.

The three men had sought a presidential pardon after the top court's verdict.

The LTTE, wiped out by Sri Lankan forces in 2009 following a bloody offensive by government troops on the island, always denied its hand in Gandhi's assassination.

But the militant group's now-slain leader Velupillai Prabhakaran went on to honour the assassin's father as a "great person who contributed to the Tamil cause."

Gandhi's killing was seen at home as retaliation for a 1987 Indian government pact with the Sri Lankan government to disarm the guerrillas, who had been trained and armed by New Delhi in the early 1980s.

After that pact, the LTTE fought Indian troops deployed to the island by Rajiv Gandhi's government to supervise the accord. India withdrew its troops after 32 months in which it lost 1,200 soldiers at the hands of the rebels.

Ten Indians and nine Sri Lankans sentenced to death by a lower court for their involvement in Rajiv Gandhi's assassination were freed after they were acquitted by the Supreme Court in 1999.

The last execution in India was in 2004 when a 41-year-old former security guard was hanged for the rape and murder of a 14-year-old schoolgirl in Kolkata city.

An anti-death penalty lobby group condemned the rejection of the clemency petition.

"It has been well established that capital punishment does not help to reform society," said Kirity Roy of the privately-run South Asia Network Against Torture and Impunity.

"If India wants to portray itself as a civilised nation and aspires to fulfil its obligations to international norms then it must abolish the practice," Roy told AFP by telephone from Kolkata.

"There were 12 rapes almost immediately after the guard's hanging and so it proves the death sentence is not a deterrent," argued Roy, urging President Patil to re-think her decision.

In May, Patil rejected a mercy petition from a murderer in the northeastern state of Assam, leaving the state scrabbling to find a hangman.

Many of the small number of known hangmen nationwide have either died or retired in recent years.

By Pratap Chakravarty (AFP)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jE08l64ks3CInW-Ik6dnaxgcePuA?docId=CNG.aa7674c639a5e9ad67258cf714f6c17d.2f1