For the seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi case who have been in Tamil Nadu jails for 30 years and waiting to be released, a helping hand has now been extended all the way from Punjab. Jagmohan Singh, a 63-year-old human rights activist from Ludhiana has written to Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister MK Stalin with an unexplored ‘alternative’ to secure the release of the convicts in the case, if there is no end to the political delay in remitting their sentences.
In his letter, Singh speaks about a ‘workable alternative’ which the Tamil Nadu government can explore to secure the release of the 7 prisoners, without having to depend on the union government. The letter refers to the concept of ‘Permanent Parole’ - a provision that currently does not exist in Tamil Nadu’s laws for prisoners, but can be introduced via legislation to secure the release of all prisoners who satisfy a certain set of conditions.
While not many states have the permanent parole provision, Rajasthan, known for its progressive open jails model, has been using this law to release prisoners permanently.
The Rajasthan Prisoners on Parole Rules 1958 allows convicts to be released on parole three times. If in all the parole periods, the prisoner’s “conduct has been good and his character exceedingly well and if the prisoner’s conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime” his case may be recommended to the state government for permanent release through parole.
In every sense, the effect of a permanent parole is the same as “commutation or remission of a sentence”, says the law. This is why it is usually offered to life term convicts or prisoners serving long sentences, based on their conduct. If the convict breaches the parole conditions or commits an offence while on parole, he or she can be made to undergo the unexpired part of the sentence in prison as well as any other sentence for committing a new offence.
While the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence 1982 does not have ‘permanent parole’ as a legal provision, Jagmohan Singh believes it can be introduced by drafting an amendment to the existing law and passing it in the state legislature. With almost all political parties in Tamil Nadu, including the DMK and the AIADMK supporting the release of Rajiv Gandhi case convicts, passing an amendment in this direction is not likely to be challenging, says Jagmohan Singh.
Fighting for the release of Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts is not new to Jagmohan Singh. The soft spoken 63-year-old says that as an ‘anti-death penalty activist’, he has been championing the cause of one of the convicts - AG Perarivalan or Arivu- for 10 years now. Mr Singh says that has a special interest in Tamil affairs, particularly with respect to the Eelam Tamils of Sri Lanka, which led him to Perarivalan, who was awarded the death penalty following a flawed investigation into the former prime minister’s assassination by LTTE agents in 1991.
In the 30 years that Perarivalan spent in Tamil Nadu’s Puzhal Central prison, Jagmohan has visited his family several times, has interacted with Perarivalan’s mother Arputhammal and has initiated talks with different human rights groups regarding his release. To date the convicts, Perarivalan included, continue to remain incarcerated. But since 2014, when the Supreme court commuted their death sentence to life term, the momentum to get these prisoners released for good has gained steam. For Perarivalan, who was sentenced to death for buying two nine-volt batteries used to in the belt bomb which killed Rajiv Gandhi, the fight for freedom intensified in 2017 when a former CBI officer submitted in court that he had omitted the part of his statement where Perarivalan said he had no idea why the batteries were bought.
A lot has happened in the 30 years that the convicts have spent in prison. Successive state governments in Tamil Nadu have fought for their release by requesting for the remission of sentences. Two convicts Nalini Murugan and Perarivalan have submitted multiple mercy pleas to the Tamil Nadu governor. But the never ending political delay in granting remission to these convicts has made freedom a dream that extends beyond their reach. This year, the Supreme Court too noted the 'extraordinary delay' by the Governor in making a decision on granting remission to all seven convicts.
On January 20, 2021, after several years of political rigmarole, Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit passed the buck by refusing to take a decision on the release of the seven. He said that only the President of India under Article 72 of the constitution has the power to grant remission to Perarivalan and the six other convicts.
However, legal experts believe that pardoning Perarivalan is well within the jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu Governor and could have been done years ago. The Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution has the power to “grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence”. This can be done for any person convicted of any crime against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends. Perarivalan is currently serving the sentence only under section 302 of the IPC (murder), which a matter to which the executive power of the state extends.
“Currently, we are waiting for a response on the mercy petition filed to the Governor which was directed to the President of India. If this is getting delayed inordinately, we will urge the Tamil Nadu government to look at permanent paroles as an alternative. This is something that can be done easily and will provide relief to the convicts. One way or the other, our fight is to secure the release of these prisoners,” says K Sivakumar, Perarivalan’s lawyer.
The 63-year-old's letter says that by releasing these convicts on permanent parole, "the ends of justice is served", urging Chief Minister Stalin to execute the ‘will of the people of Tamil Nadu and release the prisoners’. “Granting these long serving prisoners parole on health, compassionate and humanitarian grounds will come as a huge relief to the families of these prisoners,” the letter concludes.