Rajiv case: Serious issues raised, says SC, seeks CBI's reply

The Supreme Court today termed as "serious" and "debatable" the questions raised by a convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and asked the CBI to respond to his plea seeking recall of the apex court's May 1999 order upholding his conviction.
The apex court issued notice to the CBI and asked it to file its response within three weeks on the application filed by convict A G Perarivalan, who was initially awarded death sentence in the case which was later commuted to life term.
He has sought recall of the apex court's May 1999 order upholding his conviction saying he was not aware of the conspiracy.

A bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi, which posted the matter for hearing on February 21, also indicated that it could refer the matter to a larger bench.
Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on the night of May 21, 1991 at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu by a woman suicide bomber, identified as Dhanu, at a poll rally. Fourteen others, including Dhanu herself, were also killed.
Gandhi's assassination was perhaps the first case of suicide bombing which had claimed the life of a high-profile global leader.

In its May 1999 order, the top court had upheld the death sentence of four convicts - Perarivalan, Murugan, Santham and Nalini in the assassination case.

In April 2000, Tamil Nadu governor commuted the death sentence of Nalini on the basis of state government's recommendation and an appeal by former Congress president Sonia Gandhi.
On February 18, 2014, the top court had commuted the death sentence of Perarivalan to life imprisonment, along that of two other prisoners - Santhan and Murugan - on grounds of a delay of 11 years in deciding their mercy pleas by the Centre.
In his application, 45-year-old Perarivalan has said that he was held guilty of supplying two nine-volt batteries which were allegedly used in the improvised explosive device (IED) that killed Gandhi.

The reasons due to which his conviction was sustained by the apex court would "vanish completely" in wake of the affidavit by V Thiagarajan, a former CBI officer, it said.
Thiagarajan, then a superintendent of police of CBI, had recorded Perarivalan's confessional statement under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.
The application claimed that in his affidavit the former CBI officer had stated that Perarivalan had expressly stated in his confessional statement that at the time of purchase of the batteries, he had absolutely no idea for what purpose these were going to be used.
During the hearing today, the bench told advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan, representing Perarivalan, that the basis on which the convict was seeking reopening of investigation in the case was the larger conspiracy angle and the affidavit by the former CBI officer.

He said the issue relates to conviction of Perarivalan and the CBI should file a response to their plea.
The bench told the counsel that it had yesterday passed an order asking the Centre to take a decision within three months on a 2016 letter by Tamil Nadu government seeking its concurrence on releasing seven convicts in the case.
The letter written on March 2, 2016, had said that while the state government has already decided to release the seven convicts, it is necessary to seek the Centre's concurrence as per an apex court order of 2015.
The bench observed that the former CBI officer had on oath said in his affidavit that he had not recorded certain portion of Perarivalan's statement which could have been exculpatory.

"This is something which has not happened earlier. We may even refer this issue to larger bench, if needed," it said.
"These are very serious, debatable questions. We are ready to hear you and if we find that it has to be sent to a larger bench, we will do it. You have two options. Either you wait for it (issue of Tamil Nadu's 2016 letter on releasing the convicts)
till the government takes a call or you can go ahead with your submissions," the bench said.
To this, the counsel said he would like to proceed with his arguments in the matter and sought time for it.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) A N S Nadkarni, who was appeared for the Union Home Ministry, said he has no problem if the arguments were advanced in the matter.
ASG Pinky Anand appeared for the CBI.
The bench also observed that it would not "split" the Union of India into different ministries or agencies.
"It is such a serious matter which may have consequences on the Indian jurispurdence," it said.
The counsel said that CBI would have a role in the matter pertaining to his application for recall of the apex court's 1999 verdict. In his application, Perarivalan has said that he is languishing in jail for the past 26 years.

Referring to the facts in Thiagarajan's affidavit, it said "as it stands today will in any case go to the root of the matter and will remove the very basis of the conviction of the applicant in the conviction judgement, the applicant seeks for appropriate direction in this regard."
It claimed that the affidavit by the officer will "completely wipe out" Perarivalan's guilt and his purported knowledge about the alleged conspiracy to assassinate the former Prime Minister.
It also referred to CBI's report filed in the court in a sealed cover and said no time limit could be fixed for the pending investigation on the larger aspect.

While hearing Perarivalan's plea earlier, the top court had observed that the probe by CBI's Multi Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) in the larger conspiracy aspect behind Gandhi's assassination does not appear to have achieved "much headway" and could be "endless".
MDMA, set up in 1998 at the recommendations of Justice M C Jain Commission of Inquiry which had probed the conspiracy aspect of Gandhi's assassination, is headed by a CBI official and comprises officers from IB, RAW and Revenue Intelligence and other agencies.