‘Unacceptable and erroneous’: Congress unhappy over SC order releasing Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts

Later in the day, lawyer and senior Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi told reporters in New Delhi that the party intended to take all appropriate legal remedies available to it, be it review or any other form of legal redress, while describing the apex court order as “highly discouraging, dispiriting, entirely untenable and undefendable”.

He stated: “This release (of the six convicts) has shocked the nation’s conscience and has invited serious concerns and criticisms from all sides of the political spectrum… It sends an undesirable message to the world that we extend to these killers the benefit of our judicial magnitude and largesse, forgetting the nature of their crime. After all, they murdered in cold blood and by deliberate design a former prime minister.”

Also read: Victims of blast that killed Rajiv Gandhi react to release of convicts

It may be noted that the death sentence of Nalini Sriharan was commuted to life imprisonment in 2000 on the basis of a recommendation from the Tamil Nadu Cabinet and a public appeal by then Congress president Sonia Gandhi.

In 2008, Congress general secretary and Rajiv Gandhi’s daughter Priyanka Gandhi Vadra visited Nalini at the Vellore Central Prison in what she described as her way of “coming to peace with the violence and loss” she had experienced.

Asked about these two instances, Singhvi told reporters that Sonia Gandhi was entitled to have her own views, but the party was consistently opposed to the release of the seven convicts.

Pertinent questions and views

In view of the verdict, Singhvi also posed a series of pertinent questions and views:

• Why has the apex court, despite being aware of the nature of the crime, the evidence that led to the conviction, and the previous objection of the Governor, even sought to grant preferential treatment to those individuals who were convicted of a reprehensible, horrific, and heinous a crime?
• How will the apex court in the future deal with similar claims by several other similarly-placed or even less-seriously-placed convicts?
• How can the Supreme Court now refuse other similar claims regardless of howsoever heinous the crime committed?
• If ill health, good behaviour, and conduct in custody are grounds for release, why are so many individuals still in custody across the country, especially so many suffering under charges brought by this government?
• The assassination of a former prime minister stands on a totally different footing. Irrespective of political colour, such a person is reflective of the insignia of the sovereignty of the country. In that sense, a fatal attack on any prime minister — former or sitting — is an attack on the very sovereignty and integrity of India, and cannot be dealt with through normal administrative considerations.
• The degree of weight given to the state government’s view in this matter is disproportionate to the weight given to the Central government’s view.
• A somewhat strange and unintended consequence of this order would be any recommendation by any state government would be virtually binding, which is not correct.
• The court used its special, unique powers under Article 142, which is indicative of the absence of its powers to do a specific thing. The Congress believes that this a wholly inapposite invocation of the drastic, ad-hoc, and unique power of the apex court in a case involving convicted assassins of a former prime minister.

‘Don’t celebrate the convicts’

Speaking to South First, Karti Chidambaram, the Congress MP from Sivagangai in Tamil Nadu, emphasised that no one should celebrate the release of the convicts as they had not been acquitted by the court.

“They are not acquitted. They are not exonerated. They are still individuals who are convicted in the case. Not just a former prime minister but 17 others were killed in that blast. It was an act against the integrity of the country. By no means should their release be celebrated and nor should they be glorified by anyone,” he pointed out.

While claiming that he had no problem with the Supreme Court order if the law permitted it, he added that the yardstick should also apply to every convict serving a life term in other cases.

Meanwhile, Congress MP Manickam Tagore in a tweet asked the BJP-led Union Government why allegedly no counsel representing the Centre was present in court when the case was taken up for hearing on Friday.

“What about the national security implications, Mr Modi? How can you close your eyes and terrorists? [sic]” he asked.