The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has admitted that Tamil Nadu’s proposal for premature release of convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case was not sent to the President and the decision (not to concur with the proposal) was taken at the highest level in the Ministry.
In March 2016, the State sent a proposal to the Centre seeking remission of the sentences of life convicts V. Sridharan alias Murugan, T. Surendraraja alias Santhan, A.G Perarivalan alias Arivu, Nalini, Jayakumar, Robert Payas and Ravichandran.
In its reply dated April 18, 2018, the MHA said the Central Bureau of Investigation had opposed the plea on the ground that “releasing the four foreign nationals who had committed the gruesome murder of the former Prime Minister of this country along with 15 others, most of whom were police officers, in connivance with three Indian nationals, will set a very dangerous precedent and lead to international ramifications... The letter signed, “By order and in the name of the President of India” by V.B. Dubey, Joint Secretary to MHA, concluded that “the Central government, in pursuance of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not concur with the proposal of the Government of Tamil Nadu contained in their communication letter dated 02.03.2016 for grant of further remission of sentences to these seven convicts.”
Aggrieved over this, Perarivalan wrote to Rashtrapati Bhavan seeking copies of the files relating to his premature release. Replying to his RTI query, the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) said his petition [58720/CTS-VIA/2008 dated 02/03/2016] had not been received.
Setting aside a subsequent appeal in which the convict stated that the MHA had not provided him with the relevant details, the President’s office further clarified that no information was available on record of the President’s Secretariat, which could be provided on the subject.
In an RTI reply sent last week to Perarivalan lodged in Puzhal Central Prison here, the MHA confirmed that the remission proposal was not sent to the President and a decision was taken at the highest level in the Ministry.
‘Misleading letter’
K. Sivakumar, counsel for Perarivalan, said the MHA letter conveying the Centre’s decision on the proposal to remit the sentences of the seven convicts was misleading, since it was signed “By order and in the name of the President”, whereas Rashtrapati Bhavan confirmed that no such file was received by the President’s secretariat.
“While executive decisions of the Union government are taken in the name of the President, the template “By order and in the name of the President of India” is rarely used. In the matter pertaining to the rejection of premature release of the convicts, the template has been used to create an impression that the President had taken the decision, but that is contrary to truth,” he said.
Raising apprehension on whether the decision not to release the seven convicts was more political than legal, Mr. Sivakumar sought appropriate action against those responsible for the confusion in the MHA. There was no legal impediment for the Tamil Nadu Governor to take a decision on the remission of sentences of the seven convicts based on the recommendation of the Cabinet and as per law, he said