Convict’s release was long overdue

The release of Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict AG Perarivalan from jail by the Supreme Court is an affirmation of the need to place human considerations at the core of the criminal justice system, and also for those who hold constitutional offices to respect and uphold the Constitution. The case for remission of Perarivalan’s sentence had dragged on for years because of recalcitrance on the part of the Governor of Tamil Nadu, who refused to grant the convict remission on the recommendation of the state cabinet. The Supreme Court has had to invoke its special powers under Article 142 to order his release. The court had several times stated that the Governor was wrong to refuse to act on the government’s recommendation and to refer the matter to the President. It had also warned that it would order the convict’s release if the Governor, who was the authority for that, did not do so. It finally did the right thing.

Perarivalan has spent 31 years in prison for an act which he did not know would later lead to a crime. He bought the batteries used for the explosion that killed Rajiv Gandhi but when he bought them he did not know they would be used for the assassination. The investigator of the case has pointed this out. Justice demanded that Perarivalan be given an opportunity to be a part of society. The aim of the justice system should be the reformation of a convict and not retribution for life. Perarivalan has conducted himself well in jail and so he deserves the remission.

The court has also underlined the powers of state governments in a federal set-up by reiterating that the Governor was bound to act on the advice of the state cabinet in exercising the powers of remission, as in the case of most other matters. When the Governor sat on the recommendation and delayed his decision, he violated the constitutional mandate. There was no constitutional backing for the act of referring the matter to the President, who also sat on the recommendation. The whole drama was directed by the Central government, which actually should have had no role in it. It sought to wrongly defend the Governor in court and even contended that the President had the power of remission in this case. The court has rejected all these contentions and made it clear that inordinate delays in the exercise of their powers by constitutional functionaries would invite judicial review. It also underlined the human dimension by stating that such delays are wrong because human lives are involved.