HC dismisses Nalini’s plea for release

Chennai, : The Madras High Court today dismissed
a petition filed by S.Nalini, one of the seven life convicts in the
former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi assassination case seeking
a direction to the Tamil Nadu government to release her without
waiting for the approval of state Governor.
In her habeas corpus petition filed before a Bench led by
Justices R Subbiah and R Pongiappan, she sought her release
on the ground that her detention since September nine, 2018,
should be considered illegal as the State Cabinet resolution
recommending their release under Artile 161 of the Constitution
was binding on the Governor and that he could not take a contra
view.
She also sought her release from prison after declaring as
unconstitutional the Governor’s “failure” to act upon the
Cabinet recommendation.
The petitioner submitted the state cabinet passed a resolution
on September 9, 2018 requesting the Governor to release of all
the seven convicts, including her.
She contended that as per the Supreme Court order in Maru Ram
case, the cabinet advice will be binding on the Governor and
hence the ‘failure’ to act on the recommendation would amount
to contempt.
The Centre had stated that the convicts cannot be set free without
its consent.
Asserting that Nalini was not under illegal detention, the state
government said it was for the Governor to take a decision and
that it could not interfere in it.
Besides Nalini, her husband Murugan, A G Perarivalan, Santhan,
Jayakumar, Ravichandran and Robert Pyas are serving life term
for their role in the assassination Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991
by an LTTE suicide bomber at Sriperumbudur, near here.
Nalini, in her affidavit said she was found guilty in the case in 1998
and was sentenced to death by the trial court.
The conviction as well as the sentence were confirmed by the
Supreme Court on May 11, 1999. Thereafter, she sought pardon
and the then Governor commuted her death sentence to life
imprisonment on April 24, 2000 by exercising powers under
Article 161 of the Constitution.
Thereafter, claiming to have become eligible for premature release
in 2001, the 52-year-old convict said, the government was not
considering her case at all, even while scores of other convicts
were released on occasions such as birth anniversaries of former
Chief Ministers.
Claiming that the Governor had accepted the recommendations
made by the Cabinet for release of convicts in other cases, she
said there was no justification for keeping her release pending
and prayed for a direction to the government.
(UNI)