Tamil Nadu denies freedom to Rajiv Gandhi killer Nalini Murugan

Written By D Ram Raj | Updated:

Nalini was sentenced to death by a special court along with 25 others in January 1998 and the Supreme Court had confirmed the capital punishment for her and three others.

The Tamil Nadu (TN) government rejected on Monday the plea of Nalini Murugan, serving life term in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, for early release.

Conveying the government’s stand to a Madras high court (HC) bench comprising justices ED Rao and KK Sasidharan, advocate general (AG) PS Raman said the decision was taken after carefully examining the report of the second five-member prison advisory board (PAB) it constituted in January 2010 on the recommendations of HC. He said other records, including the reports of the probation officer, Chennai, and the psychologist of the special prison for women in Vellore where Nalini is serving her term, were also considered.

HC had asked the state government on March 11 to take a decision in two weeks on Nalini’s plea after AG submitted that the PAB report was being examined. Raman said PAB had rejected Nalini’s plea and the state government had accepted its report. “Considering her social history, circumstances of criminal behaviour and degree of criminality, the case is not fit for premature release,” PAB said.

The bench was hearing a petition by Nalini after the first PAB, constituted in 2006, rejected her plea. She had challenged the constitution of the first PAB, saying it was too small with only three members to decide such a big issue. Upholding her challenge, HC asked the Tamil Nadu government to reconstitute PAB. The second PAB was constituted only after Nalini went on a hunger strike in 2009. The second PAB, headed by Vellore district collector C Rajendran, heard Nalini and two others for four hours on January 20.

It concluded, “The crime was heinous. She [Nalini] was associated with and harboured the prime accused of hatching the conspiracy to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi and 18 others. She became part and parcel of the conspiracy. She had been informed about the assassination plot well in advance. Her husband is a native of Sri Lanka and faces death on account of his involvement in this case.

“She has acquired more educational qualifications and obtained degrees as well as diplomas, but that does not mean she has changed her attitude. Even now, she does not admit her guilt and has no regrets.” It also said if Nalini was released and allowed to stay with her mother and brother, who too had been imprisoned in the case, in Chennai’s Royapettah locality, it could create a law and order problem.

“In view of the above reasoning, the January 20 representation of the prisoner as a mother of a child and an individual is not acceptable. Keeping in view all these aspects and the crime committed by her against the nation, the plea for premature release on the ground that she has been incarcerated for about 19 years cannot be considered,” PAB said.

Nalini, 44, who has an 18-year-old daughter Megha through Murugan, a Sri Lankan Tamil facing death in the case, and 25 others were sentenced to death by a special court in January 1998. The Supreme Court confirmed the capital punishment, but the state government commuted death to life on April 24, 2000, allowing a clemency petition by Rajiv Gandhi’s widow Sonia.
PAB also said the prison probation officer in his July 31, 2009, report recommending her premature release had said Nalini’s family had informed him that she would live with them if released and this would not create any problem in Royapettah. But the inspector of Royapettah Police Station said that since the area housed the US consulate and important political functionaries, there was chance of a law and order problem.

Nalini has been seeking premature release under various clauses of the law. She had earlier sought release under a general amnesty scheme, wherein state governments release lifers on national holidays such as Gandhi Jayanti or Republic Day, based on their general behaviour in jail. But the TN government rejected the plea stating that her case had been probed by CBI and the state could not take a decision under article 161 of the constitution.