This article has been written by Mr. Sarthak Mangla, a student studying B.A. LL. B from Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida. The author is a 2nd year law student.
Introduction:
The case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini is a watershed moment in Indian legal history since it was the country’s first instance of terrorism. On May 21, 1991, at a public assembly in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, Rajiv Gandhi, India’s former Prime Minister, was assassinated. The Special Court for the Trial of the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case heard the case, and the decision was issued on January 28, 1998. Nalini was a defendant in the case, and her sentence was reduced to life in prison.
Background:
Rajiv Gandhi, India’s sixth Prime Minister, was killed on May 21, 1991, while campaigning in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. The assassination was carried out by a suicide bomber from the Tamil Tigers, a Sri Lankan rebel group. The incident claimed the lives of 16 people, including numerous police officers.
Numerous suspects were apprehended throughout the inquiry, including Nalini Sriharan, a member of the Tamil Tigers and the wife of Murugan, another suspect in the crime. Nalini was charged with numerous sections of the Indian Penal Code, including murder plots and violations of the Explosives Act.
The case’s trial began in 1994 and lasted many years. The trial court condemned Nalini and three other defendants to death in 1998. In 1999, the Madras High Court affirmed the sentence. Nalini, on the other hand, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of India, which remitted her death sentence to life imprisonment in 2000.
The Case:
The case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini addressed several legal issues, including the admissibility of confessional statements, the applicability of the TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act), the scope of the President of India’s power to grant pardons, and India’s use of the death penalty.
The admissibility of Nalini’s confessional statement was a significant issue in the case. Nalini had given a confessional statement to a court in which she acknowledged being a part of the plan to kill Rajiv Gandhi. She then reversed her remark, stating that she had made it under pressure. The confessional statement was permitted as evidence by the trial court, but the Supreme Court determined that it was inadmissible since it was made under duress.
Another critical problem was TADA’s applicability. The trial court had applied the TADA requirements to the case, which allowed for heavier sanctions and stricter evidence procedures. However, the Supreme Court determined that the TADA could not be applied because the violation occurred before the statute was enacted.
The case also called into question the President of India’s authority to give pardons. Nalini had requested a pardon from the president, but it had been denied. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, determined that the President’s decision was not final and that the courts might still consider the issue and offer relief if required.
The case has raised concerns about the use of the death penalty in India. Nalini had been condemned to death by the trial court, but the Supreme Court modified her sentence to life in prison. The Supreme Court ruled that the death sentence should be used only in the most egregious of circumstances, when the alternative punishment of life imprisonment was insufficient.
Legal Issues:
The following were the primary legal issues in the case:
1. Were the accused persons liable for the assassination even though they did not commit the act?
2. Did the accused have a common intention to commit the crime?
3. Was the death penalty imposed on the accused persons justified?
Legal Proceedings:
The trial of Nalini Sriharan and the other defendants was a complicated and time-consuming procedure that lasted more than a decade. The case was handled by a special court established under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), which was adopted by the Indian government in 1987 to address terrorism-related offences. The TADA court was given the authority to hold the trial in camera, or in secret, in order to safeguard the identities of witnesses and secure their safety.
Several legal and procedural issues arose during Nalini Sriharan’s and the other accused’s trial. The accused challenged the constitutionality of the TADA Act and argued that it violated their fundamental rights. They also challenged the admissibility of certain evidence and the credibility of some of the witnesses. The case was heard by different judges throughout the years, and there were frequent adjournments and delays owing to various causes, including the sickness of some of the defendants.
The TADA Act was repealed in 1998, and the trial of Nalini Sriharan and the other defendants was transferred to a regular court. The trial was continued in accordance with the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. In 1999, the trial court convicted all the defendants, including Nalini Sriharan, of several felonies, including murder, conspiracy, and terrorism. Nalini Sriharan received the death penalty.
The Parties’ Arguments:
Nalini’s main points of contention were as follows:
1. The delay in ruling on her compassion plea violated her fundamental rights, including her right to life.
2. The application of the death penalty was unwarranted since her crime did not fit under the “rarest of rare” category.
3. The trial court erred in relying on the accused’s confessional remarks, which were purportedly obtained under compulsion.
The State of Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, argued that:
- The delay in deciding the mercy petition was not unreasonable and did not amount to a violation of Nalini’s constitutional rights.
2. The offence committed by Nalini was of a heinous nature and warranted the imposition of the death penalty.
3. The confessional statements of the accused were admissible as they were made voluntarily and without any coercion.
Trial Procedures:
The trial in the case began in 1994, with 41 people charged under different provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Explosive Substances Act, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), including Nalini. The trial was held in a special court in Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
Nalini was charged with many counts of criminal conspiracy, murder, and attempted murder. She pleaded not guilty to all counts and said she was pressured into joining the plot. The prosecution made a compelling case against Nalini, and numerous witnesses testified against her.
During the trial, Nalini confessed to a magistrate about her role in the scheme. She then recanted her confession, alleging that it was obtained under duress. The trial lasted several years, with the accused filing several legal challenges and appeals.
In 1998, the trial court found all of the defendants guilty and condemned them to death, including Nalini. Nalini filed an appeal against her conviction and punishment in the Madras High Court, which maintained her conviction but shortened her sentence to life in jail. The matter was then heard by the Supreme Court of India, where Nalini filed a review petition contesting the Madras High Court’s decision.
Analysis of the Judgement:
The Supreme Court of India heard the accused persons’ appeal against their conviction and punishment. The court affirmed all of the accused’s convictions and confirmed Murugan, Santhan, and Perarivalan’s death sentences. The court, however, lowered Nalini’s death sentence to life in prison.
On the first point, the court ruled that the accused were culpable for the assassination even if they did not carry it out. The court applied the idea of “constructive liability,” which states that a person can be held guilty for a crime if they facilitate or abet its conduct. The accused took an active role in planning and carrying out the assassination, as well as providing logistical and material assistance to the real perpetrator of the crime, according to the court. As a result, they were charged with conspiracy and murder.
The court determined that the accused parties shared a common purpose to commit the offence in the second issue. The defendants met multiple times and discussed the conspiracy to murder Rajiv Gandhi, according to the court. They had also donated money and logistical support for the killing. As a result, they had developed a shared desire to perpetrate the crime.
On the third question, the court determined that the accused people’ death sentences were reasonable. The court stated that the killing of a former Prime Minister was a horrific act that jeopardised the nation’s security and stability. The accused also failed to demonstrate regret for their conduct and refused to participate with the inquiry, according to the court. As a result, the death penalty was a suitable punishment for the offence.
Appeals and Commutations:
Nalini Sriharan’s and the other accused’s convictions were contested in higher courts. The accused appealed the trial court’s decision to the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court of India. The appeals addressed a number of legal and factual concerns and were heard by several court benches.
In 2000, the Supreme Court of India heard Nalini Sriharan’s appeal and remitted her death sentence to life in prison. In making its judgement, the court weighed various aspects, including the mitigating circumstances in her case, such as her cooperation with the investigative authorities, her excellent behaviour in jail, and her family duties. The court also highlighted that she had previously been in jail for almost a decade and that there was no indication that she represented a threat to society.
Conclusion:
The State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini case had a considerable influence on the Indian judicial system. It was India’s first example of terrorism, and it underlined the need for tougher legislation to combat similar incidents. The case also brought to light the LTTE’s role in Rajiv Gandhi’s killing and the Indian government’s response to it. The case opened the path for the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in 2002, which dealt with terrorism-related offences.
References:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194120/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090357e4b014971115b5ba