Rajiv case: Nalini asks plea for premature release

Chennai, Oct 27: Nalini, one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assasination case, today moved the Madras High Court, seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu Government to consider her premature release from prison.

Originally Nalini was handed down the death sentence. But the sentence was commuted to life following the intervention of Congress President Sonia Gandhi.

Ms Justice Prabha Sridevan, before whom Nalini's petition came up for hearing, ordered notice, returnable by three weeks, to the State Home Secretary, Additional Director General of Police and Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Vellore.

In her petition, Nalini submitted that on completion of ten years of imprisonment, she had made a representation to the government for premature release. The State Government by a G.O dated September 12, 2001, ordered release of 61 life convicts, who had completed ten years of actual imprisonment as on September 13, 2001.

But her plea for premature release was not considered by the Government in view of condition (v) contained in the said G.O. The said condition was to the effect that those life convicts who fall under section 435 of the Cr.P.C would not be eligible for premature release.

Nalini submitted that as per section 435, the state government shall not exercise its powers to remit or commute a sentence in any case where the sentence was for an offence which was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment or by any other agency, except after consultation with the Central Government. She had already completed 15 years imprisonment as on September 15, 2006. The State Government by another G.O dated September 14, 2006 ordered the release of 472 life convicts who had completed ten years imprisonment as on September 15, 2006. The said G.O also stated that the life convicts falling under section 435 would not be considered eligible for premature release, she added.

She submitted that she sent another representation on September 9, 2006 for her premature release but it has not been considered by the state government.

The G.O introduces a classification among the life convicts.

Those life convicts falling under section 435 Cr.P.C and those who do not fall under the said section. This was arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable, she submitted, and sought quashing of the condition mentioned in the G.O and the direction to the government to consider her release.

UNI