Tamil NADU‘Governor’s decision on Rajiv case convicts after MDMA gives report’
NEWS
STATES
TAMIL NADU
TAMIL NADU‘Governor’s decision on Rajiv case convicts after MDMA gives report’
Legal CorrespondentCHENNAI 30 JULY 2020 01:03 ISTUPDATED: 30 JULY 2020 02:30 IST
The agency was constituted to probe into larger conspiracy behind the crime
Governor Banwarilal Purohit has decided to take a call on releasing all seven convicts involved in the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi assassination case only after the final report of a Multi-Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA), the Madras High Court was told on Wednesday.
The agency was constituted, pursuant to the Jain Commission’s findings, to probe into the larger conspiracy behind the crime.
Advertising
Advertising
Justices N. Kirubakaran and V.M. Velumani were informed by State Public Prosecutor A. Natarajan that a Deputy Secretary to the Governor had written to an Additional Chief Secretary to the State government stating that a decision on the Cabinet recommendation to release the convicts would be taken only after the final report of the MDMA, led by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The information was submitted before the court in reply to a question raised regarding the delay in considering the recommendation made by the Cabinet on September 8, 2018.
The SPP said that the Governor’s Secretariat had informed the government early this year that a decision on releasing the convicts could be taken only after taking into consideration the findings of the MDMA.
As far as a habeas corpus petition filed by T. Arputham, mother of one of the convicts A.G. Perarivalan, for releasing her son on parole for 90 days was concerned, Mr. Natarajan told the court that he was not eligible to be let out on parole now since he was already granted 60 days of parole between November 12, 2019 and January 12, 2020.
As per prison rules, every convict would be allowed to avail parole once in two years and Perarivalan had gone out in 2017 too, he said and sought time till Friday to file a detailed counter affidavit. Before acceding to his request, the judges expressed their displeasure over prison officials generally not passing any orders on representations made by prisoners for parole.
Stating that they had come across such inaction on the part of the officials in many cases, they said, even in the present case, a representation had been given in March seeking parole for the convict and a reminder was also sent in April. Yet, no orders had been passed, forcing the litigant to approach the court by spending a considerable amount on lawyer’s fees.
“The officials cannot sleep like Rip Van Winkle or Kumbhakarna. Some orders should be passed on the representations made by the prisoners.
“Otherwise we would be forced to impose costs and direct the officers concerned to pay it to the petitioners,” the senior judge on the Bench warned before adjourning further hearing on the habeas corpus petition to Friday.
