A joint session of Parliament should examine the reasons which led to the apex court’s unprecedented decision ordering the release of six convicts

The Supreme Court exercised the special power under Article 142 of the Constitution that deals with the apex court to order the release of six convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. There was neither any precedence nor any special power to pass such an extraordinary judgment, and thus the apex court resorted to the special powers endowed on it by the Article 142 of the Constitution. The Centre had consistently opposed the plea of the convicts. The Tamil Nadu government had supported the plea of the convicts, not on the basis of jurisprudence, but to address the demands of state politics. The Supreme Court, thus, knowingly became a partner to the pettiness of the political leadership of Tamil Nadu.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and B. V. Nagarathna gave the verdict to release the six remaining convicts, who had been serving life sentences for their active role in the assassination of the former Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi. Late Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on the instructions of the leadership of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam for his decision as the Prime Minister of India for sending a peacekeeping force to a friendly country, Sri Lanka, on the request of the leadership of that nation. It was not his individual decision. Late Rajiv Gandhi was not assassinated for personal enmity. He was neither killed for hatred, envy or any other reason. He was killed because he was the Prime Minister of India and for a decision that he took as the head of the executive of the country.

Along with late Rajiv Gandhi several others also died brutal deaths, which included political leaders, common men and the security personnel. The ghastly assassination of the former Prime Minister brought violent deaths to several individuals in their line of duty.

Against that backdrop, the letters written by former Congress chief Sonia Gandhi, widow of late Rajiv Gandhi, to former President KR Narayanan forgiving the killers of her husband on compassionate grounds was an act of an individual with narrow personal appeal to the emotions. She did not care for the larger attack on the sovereignty of India and also for the brutal killing of several others along with late Rajiv Gandhi. The acceptance of the mercy petitions of the convicts against death sentences was influenced by the letters of Sonia Gandhi, which should never have been accepted.

The surviving security personnel such as Anusuya Daisy Ernest, who lost three fingers in the terror attack caused by a human bomb, has hit the streets to protest the verdict of the Supreme Court. Nalini Sriharan, who had gone shopping with Kalaivani Rajaratnam alias Dhanu, was the key conspirator in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. Dhanu was the human bomb. Nalini Sriharan had bought the salwar-kurta that Dhanu had worn at the time of detonating the bomb. Now, Nalini Sriharan has been released from the jail, and soon she will fly to London to live with her daughter. She would fly out of India laughing at the state of the affairs of the country where convicts can survive capital punishment by committing gravest of the heinous crimes because of the political timidity of the Tamil Nadu politicians and the Supreme Court committing grave error of judgment.

The Supreme Court verdict has set a horrendous precedent, which will be an affront to the sovereignty of India and also a slap on the faces of the security personnel, who risk their lives in the line of duty. The Supreme Court verdict means that it has given sanctity to the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu government. The apex court has given precedence to a state government over the Central government. This is the gravest of the judicial errors. This amounts to turning the Centre-state relations on its head, and would certainly have serious consequences. This ground alone is sufficient to call for the joint session of Parliament and take speedy and corrective measures before serious damage is done to the federal structure of the country.

What would the Supreme Court do if the fundamentalists and separatists who have been convicted for terror attacks plead for mercy and the politicians in some of the states support their claims for narrow considerations? India has been a victim of several terror attacks orchestrated on the orders of the terrorist outfits and their bosses in Pakistan. There are several convicts languishing in jails for such crimes. 

By according a preferential treatment to the killers of late Rajiv Gandhi, the Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna doesn’t seem to have upheld the rule of law, Constitution, judicial precedents and its own previous orders. There is no greater crime than the attack on the sovereignty of India and yet the killers of the late Rajiv Gandhi have been released. This would mean that all other convicts for even heinous crimes such as gangrape, assassination of political leaders could demand similar treatment as meted out to the killers of the former Prime Minister. There would be thousands of such convicts in several of the jails who would demand equality in treatment before the rule of law and seek pardon. Will the Supreme Court set all of them free?

Additionally, when did the conduct in jails or the health conditions of the convicts become grounds for remission of their sentences. This is baffling. This will set such a precedence that the administration of justice will be seriously impaired.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud should take suo moto note of the grave lapse of justice by the Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna and constitute a larger bench to address a host of issues which have been raised by the release of the killers of the former Prime Minister. The Centre too should call an emergency meeting and consider the challenges posed by the judgment. It is pertinent that the remission of the capital punishment on the basis of the letters written by Sonia Gandhi too should be reviewed. President Draupadi Murmu being the supreme leader of India can step in and correct the lapse of judgment by her predecessor KR Narayanan.

A joint session of Parliament should examine reasons which led to the Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna pass such a judgment, which has shocked the nation. The Supreme Court, being the top judicial body of the country, cannot fall victim to the subjectivity of its judges. There has to be standard operating procedures in the administration of justice. This needs to be codified, and that is in the domain of the legislature. In a special session, Parliament must work out a comprehensive Bill to amend the Constitution to remove even the remotest of the scope which may allow the narrow considerations of a few people, in whatever positions they are, to make a mockery of the sovereignty of India and the patriotic spirit of the people of the nation. Time is running short, and the action must be taken before Nalini Sriharan flies to London.

(The author is Director, Public Policy Research Centre)