AG DRAFT
The Supreme Court today granted/ rejected bail to AG Perarivalan, the accused in Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case
Vacation bench of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, while granting/ rejecting the bail observed that, “
…… Appeared for the Petitioner
……… represented the respondent State
The bail has been granted/rejected against the backdrop of the SLP mother of AG Perarivalan, convict in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case, against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2021, passed by the Madras High Court.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned judgment closed the miscellaneous petition, without considering that the petitioner’s relief in WMP was with respect to the hearing of the present writ petition.
Questions of law raised in the SLP are:
1. Whether the Hon’ble High Court was correct in observing that the scope of the WMP is beyond the prayer of the Writ Petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court without considering that the interim prayer sought in the WMP is with respect to the hearing of the main Writ Petition?
2. Whether the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the Right to know the documents which is been used against the accused, is a part of the Constitutional Right envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution?
3. Whether the Hon’ble High Court did not consider that the non-serving of the documents to the Petitioner would be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution which states, “no person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law” which means that the process must be fair, clear and not arbitrary or oppressive?
The petitioner in the original petition, AG Perarivalan, has been under incarceration for the past 30 years.
A Supreme Court Bench of three judges had earlier passed an order dated 06.09.2018 directing the appropriate authority to decide the Article 161 petition of the petitioner.
In order to give full effect to the aforementioned order, the State Government recommended release of the original petitioner to the governor of TN on 09.09.2018.
When no orders were passed on the same for a considerable period, the Top Court vide order dated 21.01.2020, requested the State Government of Tamil Nadu to inform the status of petitioner’s request under Article 161.
It was learnt by letter dated 11.02.2020, that the State had already recommended their release to the Governor of TN but no action was taken upon it. Not satisfied by such a reply, the Apex Court directed the State orally to ensure that the recommendation of the State Government was honoured by the Governor.
On 16.06.2020, petitioner in the SLP moved to the High Court of Madras seeking release of her son from the prison for a period of 90 days. Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State, sought time to get instructions in the matter.
On 22.07.2020, during the course of hearing the High Court raised the question about the pendency of Article 161 petition. For want of necessary documents, the matter was listed for further hearing on 29.07.2020.
On 29.07.2020, learned public prosecutor Mr. A. Natarajan, read out a letter from the office of Governor, Tamil Nadu stating that His Excellency was awaiting the final report of the Multi-Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) to decide the petition under article 161 of Constitution of India; a very crucial piece of information relevant to the present case which has been kept pending from the petitioner’s perusal till date.
It was observed by the Court,
“Even though the State Government has taken a policy decision to release the convicts of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case as early as in the year 2018, the matter is still pending before the concerned constitutional authority and this Court is not convinced with the submissions as to why so far no order has been passed, when the representation has been sent in March, 2020 and the reminder was sent in April, 2020. It is a fact that when the person is in prison for more than 29 years, naturally his family members will be distressed…”
Counsel for petitioner in the SLP made several attempts to procure the letter referred by the learned public prosecutor, via several mails, however, no response was received in pursuance of it. (Mails dated 31.07.2020, 01.08.2020, 05.08.2020)
On 03.09.2020, State of TN refused to release the son of the present petitioner on parole under TN Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.
On 21.09.2020, petitioner filed WMP No. 16777 of 2020 in WP No. 8642 of 2020, before the Madras High Court seeking to direct the Respondent 1 to furnish the copy of the letter as read by the Public Prosecutor in the last hearing.
On 24.09.2020, Madras HC released the original petitioner AG Perarivalan, on parole for a period of 30 days, while keeping the matter pending on the WMP 16777 of 2020.
By the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2021, High Court closed the miscellaneous petition stating, “… the scope of the prayer in this WMP is beyond the scope of the prayer in the WP. When a quietus has been given to the Writ Petition vide order dated 24.09.2020 by granting 30 days leave, it will not be appropriate for this Court to grant the relief sought in the present WMP. Be it noted that Miscellaneous Petitions are usually filed only to have immediate interim succour, since at the time of filing the main petition, the petitioner may not know the date on which he will get the main relief. Hence, this Miscellaneous Petition is closed, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law.”
Case Title: AG Perarivalan v. State of Tamil Nadu