The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, June 9, declined to direct a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the circumstances under which Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict AG Perarivalan was enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, observing that a CBI investigation can be ordered only in rare cases.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed a miscellaneous petition seeking a CBI inquiry, noting that no substantive relief had been sought against the agency in the main writ petition.
“No relief has been prayed against the CBI in the main petition. As a consequence, CBI is not a necessary party. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is dismissed as not pressed. Consequently, the writ petition against CBI stands dismissed,” the Bench said.
However, the court directed the Union government, the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to file their responses to the main petition and posted the matter for further hearing on July 8.
The petition was filed by Congress MP R Sudha, who challenged Perarivalan’s enrolment as an advocate and sought directions restraining him from practising law. Sudha contended that Perarivalan had not been acquitted by the Supreme Court in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and therefore remained disqualified under the Advocates Act from being enrolled as an advocate.
She has also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, insofar as it permits persons convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment or death to enrol as advocates after the prescribed period following their release. She argued that the term “release” under the provision cannot be extended to cover persons sentenced to life imprisonment or death.
The Congress MP further alleged that Perarivalan’s conviction for offences including murder, criminal conspiracy and terrorism-related charges continued to subsist despite his release from prison. She submitted that “merely because Perarivalan was released from jail would not wipe off his guilt”.
Sudha has also questioned the process by which Perarivalan was admitted to the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, alleging irregularities in the enrolment procedure and seeking an inquiry into the matter.
Perarivalan enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on April 24 this year after completing his law degree and clearing the All India Bar Examination. He formally donned the advocate’s robes on April 27 and has indicated that he intends to practise before the Madras High Court.
Freed by the Supreme Court in May 2022 after spending more than three decades in prison, Perarivalan was one of the seven convicts in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. His death sentence, confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1999, was commuted to life imprisonment in 2014 due to delays in deciding his mercy petition.
The Supreme Court subsequently ordered his release under Article 142 of the Constitution, citing the prolonged delay in deciding remission recommendations and his incarceration of over 30 years.
Following his release, Perarivalan pursued legal studies and completed his LLB degree in 2025. Speaking to TNM after his enrolment, he had said that his prison experience motivated him to study law and that he intended to focus on prisoners’ rights, anti-death penalty litigation and issues relating to premature release.
The main challenge to his enrolment is scheduled to be heard next month after the respondents file their counter affidavits.