Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai directed that Perarivalan be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of conditions posed by the trial court concerned. He shall report to the local police station.
Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai directed that Perarivalan be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of conditions posed by the trial court concerned. He shall report to the local police station.
Meanwhile, the court listed the case for further hearing on the powers of the Governor to decide the question of his early release approved by the Tamil Nadu Cabinet and the Governor’s reference of the matter to the President.
Earlier in the day, taking note of the absence of lawyers from the side of the Centre, the Bench said the case concerned the “important issue” about the power or discretion of the Tamil Nadu Governor to fence-sit and not decide on a plea to release Perarivalan, which had already won the approval of the State Cabinet, and then claim immunity of office.
Instead of taking an independent call, the Tamil Nadu Governor had referred the plea for early release to the President. This was despite the fact that the Council of Ministers of the government of Tamil Nadu had recommended Perarivalan’s release on September 9, 2018.
“After sleeping over for five years in the Article 161 [pardon] petition and sitting over the recommendation of the State Cabinet to release the petitioner for more than good two and half years, the Union of India, on February 4, has filed an affidavit [in the Supreme Court] stating that Governor has sent the petition to the President, whereas the law is clear that Governor does not have independent discretion,” Perarivalan, represented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocates Prabu Ramasubramanian and K. Paari Vendhan, had contended in the Supreme Court recently.
Perarivalan had argued that the “stalemate” over his release from prison was “completely political”.
“He has been a prisoner for 32 years now,” Mr. Sankaranarayanan submitted.
“This is an important issue. We want to go into the question of the Governor’s power to sit on an issue approved by the Cabinet… It cannot be like this. Some order has to be passed… He cannot claim immunity,” the Bench remarked.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi and advocate Joseph S. Aristotle, for Tamil Nadu government, said there were precedents to show that a decision was not just based on the “personal discretion of the Governor”.
The Centre, led by Additional Solicitor General K.M. Natraj, was not present in court at the time.
Mr. Sankaranarayan complained that the Centre’s lawyers were not present when the court wanted them in the case but some 15 names of lawyers were usually listed in the court order.
“What is the use of having 15 to 16 lawyers if no one is arguing? In Bombay High Court, there is a system of first arguing counsel, a second and a third, so if one is absent the other can argue the case…” Justice Gavai remarked.
Finally, the court asked the parties to come back at 2 p.m. and said “if his movements are restricted, we will release him on bail”.
Perarivalan had argued that he had been “under the hangman’s noose for 16 years, and 29 years in solitary confinement out of the total 30 years of incarceration”. He had suffered the pain and trauma of the death row syndrome. “The pain was equally felt by the aging and fragile parents due to the uncertainty between life and death, and hope and despair,” he had submitted.
The Centre, in turn, in an affidavit, had highlighted that the case against Perarivalan concerned the assassination of none other than a former Prime Minister. Forty-three other people had sustained serious injuries in the bomb explosion at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu in 1991.
