Tamil Nadu moves Supreme Court to review verdict on Rajiv killers

The Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court on Wednesday seeking the review of the Constitution bench judgment holding that “consultation” with the Union government relating to grant of remission to the seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, will amount to “concurrence” and they cannot be release without Centre’s approval.

The Tamil Nadu government’s counsel Yogesh Khanna for filed this petition seeking a review of the December 3, 2015 verdict ahead of the crucial hearing next week of a batch of petitions relating to release of seven convicts who are in jail for the last 25 years.

The apex court had held that the state has no power to order suo motu release of seven convicts, viz Murugan, Santhan, Periarivalan (whose death sentence was commuted to life sentence) and that of Nalini, Robert Pius, Jayakumar and Ravichandran, serving life term by granting remission. The court had held that in cases investigated by the CBI, the state can grant remission only after consulting the Union government and “consultation” will mean “concurrence”.

In its review petition, TN said the apex Court had erroneously held that it is imperative that it is always safe and appropriate to hold that in those situations covered by sub-clauses (a) to (c) of Section 435 (1) falling within the jurisdiction of the Central Government it will assume primacy and consequently the process of ‘‘Consultation’’ in reality be held as the requirement of ‘‘Concurrence”.

The apex court had failed to consider the legislative intent in the language used in Section 435 of CrPC, and the word “consultation”, cannot be read as “concurrence” as the two terms are not synonymous. It is a settled position of law that “consultation” cannot be termed to be “concurrence”. The very observation that the issue is covered under Section 435(1)(a) would show that the Union has no primacy in matters relating to remission or commutation of sentence in view of the express provision of the statute.

Tamil Nadu said the finding of the court has empowered the Union with wide powers, which have not been contemplated even under the CrPC. Further, the reference made to Article 73(1)(a) and Article 162 to hold that the Union enjoys a special status is erroneous as the power of consultation as provided under Section 435(1)(a) cannot be expanded by courts of law. Further, effective consultation cannot be termed as concurrence to be obtained from the Central government.

It is well settled that criminal provisions of law should not be interpreted to adversely affect the rights of the accused, the state said, adding that, In the case of remitting the sentence of the convicts, it is the state government which is the executive authority more competent to decide the outcome of such release/remission of convicted persons.