Rajiv Gandhi case: SC indicates it may grant bail to Perarivalan on Mar. 9

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, says Bench

The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that it may grant bail to Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan at 2 p.m. after his lawyer complained that though his client is currently on parole, he is neither allowed to step out of the house nor meet anyone.

Taking note of the absence of lawyers from the side of the Centre, a Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai 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.