The Madras High Court on Wednesday, March 30, continued to hear the bail plea of Nalini Sriharan, who was among the seven convicted in former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination case. Nalini had moved the High Court seeking her release even without the Tamil Nadu Governor’s consent, after another convict AG Perarivalan was granted bail by the Supreme Court. The Madras High Court on Wednesday directed the state government to ascertain whether the Governor had forwarded the 2018 state cabinet recommendations on the release of all the seven convicts to the President, or selectively in respect of AG Perarivalan alone.
The first bench of Chief Justice M N Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy gave a direction to this effect orally when Nalini Sriharan's petition came up for hearing on Wednesday. The bench also wondered again as to how the High Court can entertain Nalini's plea. This is so, especially when her earlier pleas seeking a direction to the Governor to countersign the Cabinet's recommendation were rejected repeatedly, the bench added.
The previous AIADMK cabinet had in September, 2018, passed a resolution and forwarded its recommendation to the then Governor Banwarilal Purohit, to order the premature release of all the seven life convicts under 161 of the Constitution (outlining the Governor’s powers to pardon convicts). As there was nothing forthcoming from the Governor's end, Nalini and others had filed several petitions in the High Court for a direction to the Governor to consider their plea. However, no such order was passed.
Finally, Nalini filed the present writ petition praying the court to order her release even without the consent of the Governor, earlier in March. In her prayer to the High Court, she sought that the court apply the same yardstick adopted in granting Perarivalan bail in granting her a similar relief. However, the bench had said that the apex court is the country’s supreme judicial body, and that the High Court cannot decide on this issue on its own.
When the matter came up on Wednesday, the bench sought the clarification and adjourned the matter by a week.