No release for Rajiv Gandhi murderers; Centre says will set dangerous precedent

Agencies
August 10, 2018

New Delhi, Aug 10: The Centre today told the Supreme Court it does not concur with the Tamil Nadu government’s proposal to release seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, saying remission of their sentence will set a “dangerous precedent” and have “international ramifications”. A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha and K M Joseph took the document, filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, on record and adjourned the matter. On January 23, the apex court had asked the Centre to take a decision within three months on a 2016 letter by Tamil Nadu government seeking its concurrence on releasing seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

The letter, written on March 2, 2016, had said the state government has already decided to release the seven convicts, but it is necessary to seek the Centre’s concurrence as per an apex court order of 2015. “The central government, in pursuance of section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, do not concur to the proposal of the government of Tamil Nadu contained in their communication letter dated March 2, 2016 for grant of further remission of sentence to these seven convicts,” said the reply filed by MHA Joint Secretary V B Dubey.

The Ministry said the trial court had given “cogent reasons” for imposing death penalty upon the accused and pointed out that even the Supreme Court had termed the assassination an “unparallel act” in the annals of crimes committed in this country. “…releasing the four foreign nationals who had committed the gruesome murder of former Prime Minister of this country, along with 15 others most of whom were police officers, in connivance with three Indian nationals will set a very dangerous precedent and lead to international ramifications by other such criminals in the future,” the Centre said.

Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on the night of May 21, 1991 at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu by a woman suicide bomber, identified as Dhanu, at an election rally. Fourteen others, including Dhanu herself, were also killed. This was perhaps the first case of suicide bombing which had claimed the life of a high-profile global leader.

V Sriharan alias Murugan, T Suthendraraja alias Santham, A G Perarivalan alias Arivu, Jayakumar, Robert Payas, P Ravichandaran and Nalini have been in jail for 25 years. The Supreme Court had on February 18, 2014, commuted the death sentence of three convicts — Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan — citing inordinate delay by the executive in deciding their mercy plea.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 21,2020

New Delhi, Jul 21: The Supreme Court has asked the Ministry of Finance to look into a plea which claimed a loss of hundreds of crore every day, as the public sector banks are not invoking personal guarantees of big corporates who have defaulted on loans.

A bench comprising Justice R. F. Nariman and Navin Sinha asked the petitioners, Saurabh Jain and Rahul Sharma, who filed the PIL, to move the Finance Ministry with a representation within two weeks. The top court observed that the issue is important and the ministry should respond after the petitioner has made the representation before it. The matter had come up for hearing on Monday.

"We are of the view that at page 115 of the Writ Petition it has been made clear that the Ministry of Finance itself has, by a Circular, directed personal guarantees issued by promoters/managerial personnel to be invoked. According to the petitioners, despite this Circular, Public Sector Undertakings continue not to invoke such guarantees resulting in huge loss not only to the public exchequer but also to the common man", said the bench in its order.

Senior advocate Manan Mishra and advocate Durga Dutt, represented the petitioners.

Mishra contended before the bench that the statistics establish the public sector banks incurred a loss of approximately Rs 1.85 lakh crore in a financial year, and the banks did not take action to invoke personal guarantees of the biggest corporate defaulters.

The bench observed that since the petitioners claim the public sector undertakings are not complying with this circular, "We think you should first go to the ministry," said the bench.

Mishra argued before the bench that the loans from a common man are recovered through a mechanism where officials go through even the minutest detail, but promoters, chairpersons and other senior level functionaries of the big corporates find it convenient to get away by defaulting on loans.

The bench told the petitioner's counsel that the Finance Ministry has already issued a notification on this matter, and the petitioners should seek response from the ministry, and then move the top court. Mishra submitted before the bench to issue a direction to the Finance Ministry to give a response on their representation.

The bench said, "We allow the petitioners, at this stage, to withdraw this Writ Petition and approach the Ministry of Finance with a representation in this behalf. The representation will be made within a period of two weeks from today. The Ministry of Finance is directed to reply to the said representation within a period of four weeks after receiving such representation. With these observations, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn to do the needful."

Mishra contended before the bench seeking liberty to come back after a reply from the Finance Ministry. Justice Nariman said this option is open for petitioners after a decision has been taken by the ministry. "We will hear you", added Justice Nariman.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 1,2020

New Delhi, Feb 1: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday greeted the Indian Coast Guard on its raising day, appreciating its efforts to keep the country's coasts safe.

The Coast Guard came into being in 1977.

"Greetings to the Indian Coast Guard on their foundation day. Our Coast Guard has made a mark due to their remarkable efforts to keep our coasts safe," Modi tweeted.

The prime minister said the force's "concern towards the marine ecosystem is also noteworthy".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 7,2020

Mar 7: Two Malayalam news channels, Asianet News and Media One, which were banned by the information and broadcasting ministry for their coverage of the recent violence in Delhi on Friday evening, were allowed to resume telecasting on Saturday morning.

While Asianet News appeared to have begun operations around 7am on Saturday, Media One was screening content by 9.30am.

The ministry of information and broadcasting had imposed a 48-hour ban on Asianet News and Media One for their coverage of the Delhi violence for 48 hours from 7.30pm on Friday. Both Asianet News and Media One were barred under Rule 6(1 c) and Rule 6(1e) of the Cable Television Networks Act, 1994.

The ministry of information and broadcasting alleged Asianet News and Media One were "biased" and critical of the RSS and Delhi Police.

The ban on Asianet News and Media One triggered a torrent of criticism of the move. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor asked how "Malayalam channels inflame communal passions in Delhi?" and alleged some English news channels were continuing "their brazen distortions" with impunity.

In a statement issued on Friday after the ban, Media One termed the move "unfortunate and condemnable" and called it a "blatant attack against free and fair reporting". Media One called it "an order to stop free and fair journalism".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.