Why didn't Centre protest when governor commuted Nalini's death penalty: SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre, which is anxious to stop Tamil Nadu from remitting the sentences of seven lifers in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, why it did not challenge similar exercise of the state's executive power through the governor to commute Nalini's death sentence to life term.
The Centre had rushed to the SC immediately after the Jayalalithaa government in February last year proposed to remit the sentences of seven Rajiv assassination case life convicts, including three – Santhan, Perarivalan and Murugan – whose death sentences were commuted by the SC for delay in deciding their mercy pleas.
The other four to be released as per Tamil Nadu's decision were Nalini, Robert Pais, Jaikumar and Ravi Chandran. The SC had stayed the Tamil Nadu government's decision on the Centre's plea.
The Centre had argued that the state was barred from exercising executive power under Section 432 of Criminal Procedure Code to remit the sentences since the suicide bomb attack by foreign nationals in conspiracy with some Indians was investigated by the central agency CBI.
Additionally, solicitor general Ranjit Kumar argued that once the Tamil Nadu government had exercised its executive power through the governor by commuting Nalini's death sentence, it could not have re-exercised the same power under Section 432 to propose remission of life sentences on the ground that the convicts had spent more than 22 years in prison as of February 2014.
A bench of Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justices F M I Kalifulla, P C Ghose, A M Sapre and U U Lalit said, "The governor according to you (the Centre) exercised the executive power to commute the sentence. If the commutation and remission powers to be exercised in this case were the sole discretion of the Centre as your petitions argue, why did the Centre not protest or challenge the TN governor's decision to commute Nalini's death penalty?"
Kumar conceded, "It is true the governor had commuted the death sentence of Nalini to life imprisonment and the Centre had not questioned it." However, he attempted to wriggle out by arguing that these accused were convicted under many central laws – Arms Act, Passport Act, Explosives Act and Telegraph Act – thus giving the Centre sole authority to consider remission of sentences of the seven lifers.
The bench was quick to point out that death penalty was given under Section 302 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and that all accused were acquitted of charges under the central legislation TADA. "The only way the Centre could have had a say on remission was if the SC had upheld award of death penalty under TADA," the bench said.
Finding himself in a spot, the SG said he was answering the seven questions posed by the three-judge bench while referring the matter to the present five-judge bench. "I am only arguing which could be the appropriate government and not on the facts of this case," Kumar said.