GYANVAPI CASE

SC ORDERS RELEASE...

governor sought the advice of the President on the state’s recommendation, but the court said that it was his call to take and that he was bound to follow the decision of the state. As Friday’s order recorded: “This court in its May 18, 2022 judgment held that Governor, in matters of remission of appellants convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was bound by the Cabinet decision. In the present case also, the Cabinet has resolved to grant remission to the applicants.”

Tamil Nadu chief minister MK Stalin welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision. “I welcome the Supreme Court verdict on the release of six persons,” Stalin said in a tweet. “This judgment of the Supreme Court is proof that the decisions and decisions of the government elected by the people should not be shelved by the governors in the appointed positions,” he said.

The CM, also the president of the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, said that his party had championed the cause of their release while in Opposition too. After assuming power last year, his government urged the Centre to release them, writing to then president Ram Nath Kovind and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and backed the legal battle for setting them free.

The Congress termed the order “totally unacceptable and completely erroneous”, and said the top court has not acted in consonance with the spirit of India.

In a statement, Congress general secretary in-charge of communications Jairam Ramesh said, “The Congress party criticises it clearly and finds it wholly untenable. It is most unfortunate that the Supreme Court has not acted in consonance with the spirit of India on this issue.”

Addressing a press conference, party leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, “Rajiv Gandhi’s killing was an attack on the national integrity.” Responding to questions on former party president Sonia Gandhi pleading for the release of the convicts, Singhvi said, “Sonia Gandhi, above all, is entitled to her personal views. But with greatest respect, the party doesn’t agree and has made our view clear.” He added: “We stand by that view because according to us, sovereignty, integrity, identity of the nation is involved in a PM’S assassination sitting or former. That’s perhaps why the central government has also never agreed with the state government’s view in this regard.”

Senior advocates Sanjay Hegde and Gopal Shankarnaraynan, appearing for the six convicts, pointed out that they all had been in jail for over 30 years, had history of medical ailments, showed satisfactory conduct in jail, and acquired educational degrees during their incarceration.

Robert Pious became a postgraduate in MA (History) in 2004 while his brother-in-law Jeyakumar completed his school education in 2006 while in jail and later acquired diploma degrees in catering. They were sentenced to death by the TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act) court along with 24 others in January 1998 but the SC commuted their sentence while deciding their appeals in 1999.

Nalini was one of the chief conspirators of the assassination who provided logistics to the suicide bomber responsible for the former PM’S death. Her death sentence was upheld by the SC in May 1999 along with three others — Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan. It was commuted to life sentence by the Tamil Nadu governor on April 24, 2000. The remaining death row convicts benefited from a subsequent Supreme Court decision in January 2014 which held that inordinate delay in deciding mercy petitions filed by death row convicts would result in commutation of their punishment to life term.

Nalini’s lawyer G Anand Selvam told the court that her conduct throughout her incarceration was satisfactory and that she acquired a PG diploma in Computer Applications while in jail. Her husband Sriharan also claimed similar relief having acquired a Master’s in Computer Applications in jail. Of the remaining two, Ravichandran claimed to have secured a postgraduate degree in Arts while

Santhan, who suffered from various medical ailments, claimed he wrote articles and poems, some of which got published and received global awards.

The court said, “We direct all appellants to have deemed to have served the sentence in connection with Crime No. 329 of 1991. They are directed to be set at liberty if not required in any other case.” Justice Gavai was part of the three-judge bench order of May 18, which said, “Taking into account the appellant’s (Perarivalan) prolonged period of incarceration, his satisfactory conduct in jail and during parole, chronic ailments from his medical records, his educational qualifications acquired during incarceration and the pendency of his petition under Article 161 for two and a half years despite the recommendation of the State Cabinet, we do not consider it fit to remand the matter for the Governor’s consideration.”

In that judgment, the court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to do “complete justice” and directed Perarivalan to be set at liberty forthwith.

Nalini and Ravichandran approached the top court in August against a June 17 Madras high court decision that said they could not be released just because Perarivalan was. The remaining convicts then filed applications seeking equal treatment in SC.

The high court had said that unless the governor signs on the mercy plea submitted by the convicts under Article 161 (governor’s power to pardon), it was not possible to set the petitioners free. “If the argument... that a mere recommendation of the Council of Ministers to grant remission is sufficient and authorisation of the Governor is not required is accepted, then virtually the court would be declaring Article 161... redundant qua the power of the Governor,” it said.

The high court had further noted that in January 2021, the governor had sent the 2018 Tamil Nadu Cabinet resolution along with Perarivalan’s mercy plea to the President for approval.

On September 26, the top court entertained the plea of the convicts and issued notice to the Tamil Nadu government. The Centre was not a party in these proceedings, unlike in the Perarivalan case. The Tamil Nadu government represented by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi informed the court that the state stood by its earlier recommendation and it was now for the governor to act.

Almost all the accused were in their 20s when they were arrested in the years 1991-1992 following the killing at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu on May 21, 1991.

The seven convicts were convicted by a special TADA court following their clear role in the conspiracy to assassinate the former PM that also resulted in the death of 15 others, including nine police personnel. row. It also directed the Hindu parties to file their replies within three weeks on the appeal filed by the management committee of the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, challenging the Allahabad high court order on the appointment of an advocate commissioner to carry out the survey.

The order came after senior advocate Huzefa Ahmedi, appearing for the committee, argued that although their plea against the maintainability of the suit by the Hindu women was dismissed by a Varanasi civil court on September 12, their challenge to the appointment of the advocate commissioner was still subsisting. It was during the survey by the advocate commissioner that the Shivling was purportedly found.

Representing the Hindu side, senior counsel Ranjit Kumar and advocate Vishnu Jain contended that the petition before the SC may not survive since the committee is participating in the proceedings before the advocate commissioner. Rebutting this, Ahmedi said the factual position needs to be verified. “.. saying it is infructuous is not correct since if the appointment of the advocate commissioner falls then the case falls itself,” he added.

At this, the bench, for the time being, agreed to keep the matter pending and asked the Hindu side to submit replies to the applications moved by the mosque committee in the matter. The court is expected to hear the case after four weeks. The bench was dealing with an application by the Hindu women, pointing out that on May 17, the SC protected the area where the Shivling was said to have been found after the Varanasi court allowed a videographic survey of the mosque complex adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath temple. The May 17 order of securing the area was to remain operational for eight weeks after the disposal of an application moved by the mosque committee before the civil court.

This application by the mosque committee sought dismissal of the Hindu women’s suit on grounds of maintainability and for being violative of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. However, the civil court rejected the committee’s plea on September 12 and decided to proceed with the suit. The eight-week period fixed by the SC was triggered after that.

The SC is currently seized of a petition filed by the mosque committee in May, opposing the suit of five Hindu women who demanded an unhindered right to worship Maa Shringar Gauri Sthal located behind the western wall of the mosque complex.

The committee claims that the suit is barred by the provisions of the 1991 Act, which locks the position or “religious identity” of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. The committee had appealed against the April 2022 order of the Allahabad high court allowing the survey.

On May 20, the SC transferred the suit filed by the Hindu women from the Varanasi civil judge to the district judge for deciding the mosque committee’s objections against the inquiry. It asked the district judge to first decide on the maintainability of the suit. Ascertainment of the religious character of a place may not be barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991, the court observed on that day as it refrained from interfering with the Gyanvapi mosque survey.