SC notice to Centre and states on Nalini's plea

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday sought responses of the Centre and states on a petition filed by Nalini — whose death penalty in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case was commuted to life in 2000 — questioning the Union government's role in remission of life terms awarded in CBI investigated cases.
A bench of Chief Justice R M Lodha and Justices Kurian Joseph and R F Nariman issued notices on Nalini's petition after briefly hearing her counsel M Radhakrishnan, who said releasing life convicts should be the sole prerogative of state governments.
Nalini challenged the constitutional validity of Section 435(1) of Criminal Procedure Code that mandated the Tamil Nadu government to consult the Centre before releasing seven convicts serving life terms in the case.
After the SC commuted death sentences of Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan, the Jayalalithaa government on February 19 proposed to remit the remaining sentences of all seven life convicts, including the three, and release them from prison. Nalini is Murugan's wife.
The Centre immediately challenged the state's decision and the SC on February 20 stayed their release. All the convicts have been in prison for the last 23 years.
Nalini's petition said Sections 432 and 433 of CrPC did not put any fetter on the state's power to release life convicts after remitting their sentence. The only consideration for release of life convicts by the state governments was whether they, on release from prison for good conduct, would be able to fit into the mainstream and lead a normal life, she said.
Nalini said since the Tamil Nadu governor commuted her death sentence to life term on April 24, 2000, the state government had released nearly 2,200 life convicts who had served around 10 years in prison, exercising powers under Sections 432 and 433 of CrPC.
She said though her imprisonment had been for 23 years, she had not been considered for release only because the offence against her was investigated by the CBI, thus attracting the central consultation bar provided under Section 435.
"When the object of premature release is reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners and when the life convicts are released prematurely only on the basis of good conduct in prison, and when such good conduct is assessed only by the state government, requiring the state government to consult the Centre in respect of life convicts whose offences were investigated by the CBI would be irrational," she said, challenging the validity of Section 435(1).
"What the state had considered while releasing the life convicts was not which agency investigated the offences against them, but whether the released convicts would be able to join society to lead a normal life," she said.