AG Perarivalan, who was convicted of involvement in the assassination of the former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, was freed on Wednesday (May 18) by the Supreme Court of the country.

AG Perarivalan, who was convicted of involvement in the assassination of the former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, was freed on Wednesday (May 18) by the Supreme Court of the country. Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a suicide bomber while campaigning in an election in the southern Indian town of Sriperumbudur on May 21, 1991. In the same year, Perarivalan was convicted of purchasing the batteries used to detonate the bomb that killed Rajiv Gandhi. Perarivalan was on life imprisonment. In India's top court, a bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao invoked extraordinary powers to grant relief to the 50-year-old Perarivalan. The so-called extraordinary powers were conferred on it under Article 142 of the Constitution of the country. What is Article 142 of the Indian Constitution? Article 142 is often termed judicial activism. In cases and situations when law or statute is unable to provide a solution, Article 142 provides a special power to the Supreme Court of India to do "complete justice". It is understood that such orders are enforceable nationwide as prescribed by any law made by Parliament or order of the President of India. Definition of Article 142 in the Constitution of India "142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc.- (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself." Instances when Article 142 was used 2016: A ban on the sale of alcohol within a stipulated distance of 500 metres from the outer edge of the highway to avoid accidents due to drinking and driving. 2014: Coal block allocation case when Supreme Court cancelled the allocation of coal blocks granted from 1993 onwards who were guilty of wrongdoing. 1989: Article 142 was used to provide compensation to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy victims. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict freed: All you need to know about Article 142 and its scope

The Tamil Nadu government has expressed its contrary view on the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict Perarivalan (a) Arivu’s parole plea during the hearing at the Madras High Court on Monday. This comes after his mother Arputhammal had moved the court on humanitarian grounds given her son’s prevailing health conditions, at a time when many of his fellow jail inmates were testing coronavirus positive. The hearing has been adjourned till&nbsp;August 12.

Although Perarivalan was convicted in 1991 under the grounds of having provided two 9-volt batteries which were used in the bomb that killed Rajiv Gandhi, it has been established later that he merely procured the batteries without knowing about the conspiracy or what the batteries would be used for.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-case-ag-perarivalan-approaches-mumbai-hc-seeking-details-on-sanjay-dutts-release-316248">Rajiv Gandhi assassination case: AG Perarivalan approaches Mumbai HC seeking details on Sanjay Dutt’s release</a>

Senior advocate Shri.R.Shunmugasundaram, Perarivalan’s counsel argued that he deserves parole on the health grounds, pointing out that the government’s counter-affidavit too makes mention of the various ailments that the convict is suffering from.&nbsp;

However, another senior advocate Shri. A. Natarajan, the State Public Prosecutor rejected the same saying that prisoners are entitled to leave only once in two years. It was added that Arivu had been last granted parole from November 2019 to January this year.&nbsp;

Further Shri. A. Natarajan, emphasized that the pendency of the investigation of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination by Multi-disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) is the reason behind the undue delay of the governor's decision on the cabinet recommendation dated 09.09.2018 of the TN Govt.

The MDMA, a special wing of CBI, was appointed following the report of the Jain Commisison to probe the larger conspiracy in the former PM's assassination case, which involved persons of other countries.&nbsp;

However, it is important to recall that initially, CBI had registered an FIR and which was subsequently tried as Calendar Case no. 3/92 against 26 accused including Arivu. A split trial case in Calendar Case No. 11/92 was pending against LTTE leader Prabhakaran and 2 others, wherein MDMA prayer for further investigation and the same was allowed in 2000.&nbsp;

In 2013, Perarivalan prayed before the Designated TADA Court, Chennai for effective monitoring of the pending probe. But this plea before the court faced stiff opposition from the CBI which was investigating the case. That case too was rejected and it was stated that Perarivalan did not have the locus to know the status of pending MDMA investigation.

In 2017, CBI officer Thiyagarajan had informed the Supreme Court about an error it had made while recording Perarivalan’s confession. Then too, the apex court mentioned that the progress of the MDMA investigation was not functioning satisfactorily. That was what led the Supreme Court to rule that Arivu could be released under Rule 161 by the State Government.&nbsp;

Recently too, TN govt. informed that TN Governor Banwarilal Purohit is awaiting the final report of the MDMA, which is completely contrary to their earlier view of former CM J.Jayalalithaa's decision to release seven prisoners including Perarivalan. 
&nbsp;

The Tamil Nadu government has expressed its contrary view on the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict Perarivalan (a) Arivu’s parole plea during the hearing at the Madras High Court on Monday.

The Tamil Nadu government has expressed its contrary view on the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict Perarivalan (a) Arivu’s parole plea during the hearing at the Madras High Court on Monday. This comes after his mother Arputhammal had moved the court on humanitarian grounds given her son’s prevailing health conditions, at a time when many of his fellow jail inmates were testing coronavirus positive. The hearing has been adjourned till August 12. Although Perarivalan was convicted in 1991 under the grounds of having provided two 9-volt batteries which were used in the bomb that killed Rajiv Gandhi, it has been established later that he merely procured the batteries without knowing about the conspiracy or what the batteries would be used for. Also read | Rajiv Gandhi assassination case: AG Perarivalan approaches Mumbai HC seeking details on Sanjay Dutt’s release Senior advocate Shri.R.Shunmugasundaram, Perarivalan’s counsel argued that he deserves parole on the health grounds, pointing out that the government’s counter-affidavit too makes mention of the various ailments that the convict is suffering from. However, another senior advocate Shri. A. Natarajan, the State Public Prosecutor rejected the same saying that prisoners are entitled to leave only once in two years. It was added that Arivu had been last granted parole from November 2019 to January this year. Further Shri. A. Natarajan, emphasized that the pendency of the investigation of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination by Multi-disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) is the reason behind the undue delay of the governor's decision on the cabinet recommendation dated 09.09.2018 of the TN Govt. The MDMA, a special wing of CBI, was appointed following the report of the Jain Commisison to probe the larger conspiracy in the former PM's assassination case, which involved persons of other countries. However, it is important to recall that initially, CBI had registered an FIR and which was subsequently tried as Calendar Case no. 3/92 against 26 accused including Arivu. A split trial case in Calendar Case No. 11/92 was pending against LTTE leader Prabhakaran and 2 others, wherein MDMA prayer for further investigation and the same was allowed in 2000. In 2013, Perarivalan prayed before the Designated TADA Court, Chennai for effective monitoring of the pending probe. But this plea before the court faced stiff opposition from the CBI which was investigating the case. That case too was rejected and it was stated that Perarivalan did not have the locus to know the status of pending MDMA investigation. In 2017, CBI officer Thiyagarajan had informed the Supreme Court about an error it had made while recording Perarivalan’s confession. Then too, the apex court mentioned that the progress of the MDMA investigation was not functioning satisfactorily. That was what led the Supreme Court to rule that Arivu could be released under Rule 161 by the State Government. Recently too, TN govt. informed that TN Governor Banwarilal Purohit is awaiting the final report of the MDMA, which is completely contrary to their earlier view of former CM J.Jayalalithaa's decision to release seven prisoners including Perarivalan.

Rajiv Gandhi assassination case: Convict Perarivalan’s parole hearing adjourned till August 12

AG&nbsp;Perarivalan (a) Arivu, a life convict who has languished 29 years in jail, in connection with the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case has approached the Mumbai High Court seeking details related to the early release of Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt, who was also convicted under the Arms Act. The decision to approach the Mumbai High Court comes after Perarivalan’s failed attempts to seek more details on the above via an RTI query.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-case-lawyer-raises-questions-over-nalinis-suicide-attempt-in-jail-suspects-foulplay-314851">Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case: Lawyer raises questions over Nalini’s suicide attempt in jail, suspects foulplay</a>&nbsp;

Although Perarivalan (at the age of 19) was convicted under the grounds of having provided two 9-volt batteries which were used in the bomb that killed Rajiv Gandhi, it has been established later that he merely procured the batteries without knowing about the conspiracy or what the batteries would be used for.&nbsp;

It is notable that, despite the President of India having rejected actor Dutt’s clemency petition and his conviction under a law that falls under Central government’s jurisdiction, the Maharashtra state government had used its legal powers, rights to grant permission for the actor’s early release.&nbsp;

In March 2016, Perarivalan had sought details under the Right to Information Act (RTI), regarding the legal procedures that led to Dutt’s early release on compassionate grounds. However, it is stated that the response from the Yervada Jail Information Officer and higher authority- Pune district Information office was lax. Hence Perarivalan’s lawyers have approached the Mumbai High court requesting action against the erring officials and also seeking more details on Dutt’s release.&nbsp;

When the Tamil Nadu government had earlier allowed Arivu out on parole, the state’s advocate general had pointed out that the right and powers to grant parole solely remained with the state government. The advocate general had also guided the state government on the procedures for the same.&nbsp;

On the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti in 2019, the central government had issued an order regarding the early release of prisoners. The government order had emphasized that, under Rule 161, the respective states could ensure the early release of prisoners as per their existing prison rules and regulations.

Even in a verdict delivered on September 6th, 2018, the Supreme Court had clearly stated that it was within the powers of the State government, under Rule 161, to decide on the release of Perarivalan.&nbsp;

“When Dutt and Arivu are punished under the same Arms act, how did the Maharashtra government decide on releasing Dutt on their own, without discussing with the Central government. If we get the documents and procedures leading to Dutt’s release by the State government, we could get more clarity” K.Sivakumar Arivu’s lawyer told WION, expressing hope.

The Mumbai High Court has agreed to take up this case and the hearing date is expected to be revealed in the following week.&nbsp;

AG Perarivalan (a) Arivu, a life convict who has languished 29 years in jail, in connection with the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case has approached the Mumbai High Court seeking details related to the early release of Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt, who was also convicted under the Arms Act.

AG Perarivalan (a) Arivu, a life convict who has languished 29 years in jail, in connection with the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case has approached the Mumbai High Court seeking details related to the early release of Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt, who was also convicted under the Arms Act. The decision to approach the Mumbai High Court comes after Perarivalan’s failed attempts to seek more details on the above via an RTI query. Also read | Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case: Lawyer raises questions over Nalini’s suicide attempt in jail, suspects foulplay Although Perarivalan (at the age of 19) was convicted under the grounds of having provided two 9-volt batteries which were used in the bomb that killed Rajiv Gandhi, it has been established later that he merely procured the batteries without knowing about the conspiracy or what the batteries would be used for. It is notable that, despite the President of India having rejected actor Dutt’s clemency petition and his conviction under a law that falls under Central government’s jurisdiction, the Maharashtra state government had used its legal powers, rights to grant permission for the actor’s early release. In March 2016, Perarivalan had sought details under the Right to Information Act (RTI), regarding the legal procedures that led to Dutt’s early release on compassionate grounds. However, it is stated that the response from the Yervada Jail Information Officer and higher authority- Pune district Information office was lax. Hence Perarivalan’s lawyers have approached the Mumbai High court requesting action against the erring officials and also seeking more details on Dutt’s release. When the Tamil Nadu government had earlier allowed Arivu out on parole, the state’s advocate general had pointed out that the right and powers to grant parole solely remained with the state government. The advocate general had also guided the state government on the procedures for the same. On the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti in 2019, the central government had issued an order regarding the early release of prisoners. The government order had emphasized that, under Rule 161, the respective states could ensure the early release of prisoners as per their existing prison rules and regulations. Even in a verdict delivered on September 6th, 2018, the Supreme Court had clearly stated that it was within the powers of the State government, under Rule 161, to decide on the release of Perarivalan. “When Dutt and Arivu are punished under the same Arms act, how did the Maharashtra government decide on releasing Dutt on their own, without discussing with the Central government. If we get the documents and procedures leading to Dutt’s release by the State government, we could get more clarity” K.Sivakumar Arivu’s lawyer told WION, expressing hope. The Mumbai High Court has agreed to take up this case and the hearing date is expected to be revealed in the following week.

Rajiv Gandhi assassination case: AG Perarivalan approaches Mumbai HC seeking details on Sanjay Dutt’s release

The Government of India has informed the Madras High Court that the Tamil Nadu Governor has full powers, freedom to decide on the mercy plea of AG Perarivalan, one of the convicts in former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s Assassination.&nbsp;

The release of the seven convicts has been pending since September 2018, when the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a resolution for their release and handed it over to Governor Banwarilal Purohit for his assent, which has not been assented to till date.

Owing to the Governor not having assented to the resolution, one of the convicts Nalini Sriharan had filed a Habeas Corpus plea in the High Court stating that she was being kept in jail without legal grounds and that she must be allowed to appear in court and that a decision on her release be taken. The plea also mentioned the pending action by the Governor of Tamil Nadu on the resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu government which recommended the release of all the seven convicts in the case - Murugan, Santhan, Perarivalan, Jayakumar, Ravichandran, Robert Payas and Nalini.

In response to Nalini’s petition, the Ministry of Home Affairs stated that the plea by the government of Tamil Nadu to release the seven persons convicted in the case has already been rejected by the central government. Adding that the only mercy petition pending before the Governor is that of AG Perarivalan and urged the High Court to dismiss the habeas corpus filed by Nalini.

“The Ministry of Home Affairs has already rejected the proposal of the Tamil Nadu government under Section 453 of the CrPC for the release of the above named 7 convicts in the case. The mercy petition is pending with the Hon’ble Governor of Tamil Nadu, Governor is a Constitutional functionary and he has the discretion to decide on the petition under the powers conferred upon him by the Constitution of India,” reads the counter affidavit filed by the MHA.

The government of Tamil Nadu had earlier proposed the release of the convicts to the Central Government, which was rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs in April 2018 citing section 453 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court in September 2018 directed the Tamil Nadu Governor to consider the mercy petition of Perarivalan. Following which, the government of Tamil Nadu passed an Assembly Resolution that recommended the governor to take action in the case under Article 161 (Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases) of the Constitution of India.

Speaking to WION, Nalini’s advocate Radhakrishnan said, “State cabinet has passed a resolution in September 2018 and it is binding on the Governor and all seven of them should have been released on 9th September 2018. Three earlier cases were adjudged by a Constitutional bench, where it was ruled that the Governor has no discretion under Article 161. The Governor merely is a signing authority. We maintain that they are under illegal detention since September 2018 and should be released.”

The next hearing in the case will be on February 12.

The Government of India has informed the Madras High Court that the Tamil Nadu Governor has full powers, freedom to decide on the mercy plea of AG Perarivalan, one of the convicts in former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s Assassination.

The Government of India has informed the Madras High Court that the Tamil Nadu Governor has full powers, freedom to decide on the mercy plea of AG Perarivalan, one of the convicts in former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s Assassination. The release of the seven convicts has been pending since September 2018, when the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a resolution for their release and handed it over to Governor Banwarilal Purohit for his assent, which has not been assented to till date. Owing to the Governor not having assented to the resolution, one of the convicts Nalini Sriharan had filed a Habeas Corpus plea in the High Court stating that she was being kept in jail without legal grounds and that she must be allowed to appear in court and that a decision on her release be taken. The plea also mentioned the pending action by the Governor of Tamil Nadu on the resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu government which recommended the release of all the seven convicts in the case - Murugan, Santhan, Perarivalan, Jayakumar, Ravichandran, Robert Payas and Nalini. In response to Nalini’s petition, the Ministry of Home Affairs stated that the plea by the government of Tamil Nadu to release the seven persons convicted in the case has already been rejected by the central government. Adding that the only mercy petition pending before the Governor is that of AG Perarivalan and urged the High Court to dismiss the habeas corpus filed by Nalini. “The Ministry of Home Affairs has already rejected the proposal of the Tamil Nadu government under Section 453 of the CrPC for the release of the above named 7 convicts in the case. The mercy petition is pending with the Hon’ble Governor of Tamil Nadu, Governor is a Constitutional functionary and he has the discretion to decide on the petition under the powers conferred upon him by the Constitution of India,” reads the counter affidavit filed by the MHA. The government of Tamil Nadu had earlier proposed the release of the convicts to the Central Government, which was rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs in April 2018 citing section 453 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court in September 2018 directed the Tamil Nadu Governor to consider the mercy petition of Perarivalan. Following which, the government of Tamil Nadu passed an Assembly Resolution that recommended the governor to take action in the case under Article 161 (Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases) of the Constitution of India. Speaking to WION, Nalini’s advocate Radhakrishnan said, “State cabinet has passed a resolution in September 2018 and it is binding on the Governor and all seven of them should have been released on 9th September 2018. Three earlier cases were adjudged by a Constitutional bench, where it was ruled that the Governor has no discretion under Article 161. The Governor merely is a signing authority. We maintain that they are under illegal detention since September 2018 and should be released.” The next hearing in the case will be on February 12.

Tamil Nadu Governor has complete liberty to decide on Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict’s mercy plea, says Government of India

ag-perarivalan

Ag Perarivalan, News on Ag Perarivalan, stories on Ag Perarivalan, articles on Ag Perarivalan, Ag Perarivalan stories at Wion, Ag Perarivalan news, Ag Perarivalan latest news

ag perarivalan

Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict freed: All you need to know about Article 142 and its scope

Rajiv Gandhi assassination case: Convict Perarivalan’s parole hearing adjourned till August 12

Rajiv Gandhi assassination case: AG Perarivalan approaches Mumbai HC seeking details on Sanjay Dutt’s release

Tamil Nadu Governor has complete liberty to decide on Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict’s mercy plea, says Government of India