Rajiv case convicts: Why oppose parole if cabinet backs release, HC asks govt

Rajiv case convicts: Why oppose parole if cabinet backs release, HC asks govt

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Chennai: 04.08.2020

While the state cabinet has recommended the release of all seven life convicts in former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination case, why does the state vehemently oppose the parole plea of A G Perarivalan, one of the convicts, asked the Madras high court on Monday.

“Your cabinet has recommended his release in toto, then why are you opposing his application for parole for one month? Do not oppose for the sake of opposing it,” a division bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice V M Velumani told state public prosecutor A Natarajan.

To this, Natarajan explained that he is not opposing for the sake of opposing but the applicant must have valid reasons to seek parole.

“Only last year he was out on leave. As per prison rules, a prisoner becomes eligible for next parole only after three years. Moreover, the prison doctor has made it very clear in his report that though the prisoner suffered a series of illnesses, he is currently under medication for the same and he is stable,” Natarajan said.

However, senior counsel R Shanmugasundaram pointed out that there is a provision in the prison rules under which the state can exempt a prisoner from such conditions and grant parole. To this, the prosecutor said, “there are such exemptions, but the same cannot be granted on medical grounds.”

Refusing to accept the contention, the bench said, “If rules prohibit leave on medical grounds then such rule has become redundant. It has to be updated. Do you mean to say illnesses are not extraordinary situations?”

The court then directed the state and the petitioner to file an affidavit on the current status of the multi-disciplinary monitoring agency (MDMA) probing the larger conspiracy behind the former PM’s assassination and the interim orders of the Supreme Court, if any, in connection with the matter. The bench then adjourned the hearing to August 12.

The issue pertains to a plea moved by T Arputhammal, mother of Perarivalan. She wanted the court to grant 90 days parole to her son who needs immediate medical attention in view of various ailments.

The court posed the question when a parole application for Perarivalan, a life convict in the case, came up for hearing