TN made its own interpretation
Jayaraj Sivan & Julie Mariappan | TNN 11.09.2018
The Tamil Nadu cabinet’s decision to release all the seven convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and the debates surrounding the issue turn out to be a case of the political class in the state making much sound and fury about the Supreme Court observation in the A G Perarivalan case.
The September 6 observation of the apex court - which states that Tamil Nadu governor is naturally “at liberty to decide” on Perarivalan’s application filed before him under Article 161 of the Constitution “as deemed fit” – is not an adjudicatory judgment and does not make any marked difference in the earlier stated position regarding the jurisdictional aspects of the case.
While considering the state government’s remission power under Section 435 of CrPC, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the SC, on December 2, 2015, had ruled that states could not remit sentences of convicts in cases investigated by central agencies under any central law. The Constitution Bench made it amply clear that the Centre’s concurrence was mandatory for states to decide on remission in cases involving heinous crimes, especially when national interest was at stake. Now, Tamil Nadu government is invoking Article 161 of the Constitution, arguing that it can decide on the remission of not only Perarivalan, but the remaining six people as well.
Following the cabinet decision, the government on Monday sent individual case files of all the seven convicts to governor Banwarilal Purohit, seeking their release. The government has also enclosed the legal opinion provided by its advocate general Vijay Narayan to drive home its argument.
The opposition parties in Tamil Nadu, including the DMK and the PMK, jumped the gun to celebrate the SC order following incorrect reporting by a section of media. Perhaps, sensing that the issue lends itself for some political mileage, the state government has sought to play it to the gallery. “In this case, TN government has kept the political reasoning to the fore, pushing the law around the case to the back seat,” said senior advocate K M Vijayan.
Law minister C V Shanmugam said the convicts had completed a quarter century in prison. “The government is very firm. After the SC order, we wasted no time in adhering to it,” he said, expressing hope that Purohit also would act fast.
“The Supreme Court has specifically given the liberty to the governor to consider the application of Perarivalan under Article 161 of the Constitution. My opinion goes on to say that what transpires in the case of Perarivalan will apply to all since they have also made similar applications to the state. That is logical,” Narayan told TOI. His argument is that since the only sentence they serve now is under Section 302 of IPC, which falls in the state list, Tamil Nadu government is well within its rights to decide their release. Given the Centre’s objection, the governor may not play ball though.
Jayaraj Sivan & Julie Mariappan | TNN 11.09.2018
The Tamil Nadu cabinet’s decision to release all the seven convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and the debates surrounding the issue turn out to be a case of the political class in the state making much sound and fury about the Supreme Court observation in the A G Perarivalan case.
The September 6 observation of the apex court - which states that Tamil Nadu governor is naturally “at liberty to decide” on Perarivalan’s application filed before him under Article 161 of the Constitution “as deemed fit” – is not an adjudicatory judgment and does not make any marked difference in the earlier stated position regarding the jurisdictional aspects of the case.
While considering the state government’s remission power under Section 435 of CrPC, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the SC, on December 2, 2015, had ruled that states could not remit sentences of convicts in cases investigated by central agencies under any central law. The Constitution Bench made it amply clear that the Centre’s concurrence was mandatory for states to decide on remission in cases involving heinous crimes, especially when national interest was at stake. Now, Tamil Nadu government is invoking Article 161 of the Constitution, arguing that it can decide on the remission of not only Perarivalan, but the remaining six people as well.
Following the cabinet decision, the government on Monday sent individual case files of all the seven convicts to governor Banwarilal Purohit, seeking their release. The government has also enclosed the legal opinion provided by its advocate general Vijay Narayan to drive home its argument.
The opposition parties in Tamil Nadu, including the DMK and the PMK, jumped the gun to celebrate the SC order following incorrect reporting by a section of media. Perhaps, sensing that the issue lends itself for some political mileage, the state government has sought to play it to the gallery. “In this case, TN government has kept the political reasoning to the fore, pushing the law around the case to the back seat,” said senior advocate K M Vijayan.
Law minister C V Shanmugam said the convicts had completed a quarter century in prison. “The government is very firm. After the SC order, we wasted no time in adhering to it,” he said, expressing hope that Purohit also would act fast.
“The Supreme Court has specifically given the liberty to the governor to consider the application of Perarivalan under Article 161 of the Constitution. My opinion goes on to say that what transpires in the case of Perarivalan will apply to all since they have also made similar applications to the state. That is logical,” Narayan told TOI. His argument is that since the only sentence they serve now is under Section 302 of IPC, which falls in the state list, Tamil Nadu government is well within its rights to decide their release. Given the Centre’s objection, the governor may not play ball though.
No comments:
Post a Comment