CHENNAI, July 18:
The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed as not maintainable, a petition filed by Nalini Sriharan, one of the seven life convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, seeking a direction to the Governor to release them as per the State Cabinet recommendation. By dismissing her plea as not maintainable, a Division Bench of Justice R Subbiah and Justice Krishnan Ramasamy upheld the immunity enjoyed by a state Governor against judicial directions.In her plea, Nalini contended that the September nine, 2018 State Cabinet resolution, recommending the release of the seven convicts under Article 161 of the Constitution, was binding on the Governor to accept it. However, the State government contended that the Governor enjoys unqualified immunity under Article 361(1) of the Constitution and hence no direction could be given to the Governor. Since the Governor functions on the advice of the Council of Ministers, he was not answerable to the court and only the State was answerable. The Court had on Friday last reserved the orders after hearing arguments from both the sides.
On July 5, the High Court had granted one month parole to Nalini after she argued her case in person seeking six month’s Ordinary leave to make arrangements for her daughter’s marriage.
Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami had on July nine told the State Assembly that the State Government was committed for the release of all the seven life convicts.
Replying to a question during the debate on the demand for grants, he said “based on the verdict of the Supreme Court, the State cabinet adopted a resolution recommending their release under Article 161 of the Constitution and the same has been forwarded to the Governor. It was up to the Governor to take a decision, he added. The seven convicts V Sriharan alias Murugan, T Suthanthiraraja alias Santhan, A G Perarivalan alias Arivu, Jayakumar, Robert Payas and Nalini, were in Jail for the last 28 years and the demand for their release has been gaining momentum with various political parties urging the State government to exert pressure on the Governor to act on the State Cabinet resolution. The State Cabinet had on September nine last year, adopted a resolution recommending to the Governor to release all the seven convicts under Article 161 of the Constitution. The decision to release all the seven convicts was taken in line with the September six, 2018 Supreme Court order. Based on the Apex Court order, which had asked the Governor to consider the mercy plea of Perarivalan for premature release, the Cabinet had recommended to the Governor to release all the convicts under Article 161 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Naveen Sinha and K M Joseph had on September six disposed of a plea filed by the Centre opposing the State government’s proposal for the release of the convicts, and asked the Governor to consider the mercy plea of Perarivalan. The Raj Bhavan had on September 15 said a just and fair decision would be taken in accordance with the Constitution. The Raj Bhavan said it was a complex case and involves examination of legal, administration and Constitutional issues and the papers would be processed scrupulously.It said “a section of the media has been reporting that in the matter of the release of the convicted prisoners undergoing life imprisonment for involvement in the assassination of the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, a reference has been made to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs”. “Some Television Channels have been conducting debates on this assumption. It is clarified that no reference has been made to the Ministry of Home Affairs in the matter”, it added.
“The case is a complex one and involves the examination of legal, administrative and Constitutional issues”, the Raj Bhavan said.
The records, which were voluminous were being received from the State Government, with the connected Judgments having been handed over to the Raj Bhavan on September 14 only.
“All efforts will be taken to process the papers scrupulously. Necessary consultation may be carried out, when required, in due course”, it said and added that the decision would be taken in a just and fair manner and in accordance with the Constitution. (UNI)
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel