This article is written by Sahil Arora. This article highlights a significant case under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA Act) involving the assassination of a former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi of India by a human bomb who was an operative of the LTTE from Sri Lanka. It covers the facts of the case, arguments made by the parties, the judgement, and the case laws referred by the Supreme Court.

This article has been published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Introduction

State of Tamil Nadu vs. Nalini (1999), also known as the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case, is a landmark judgement in Indian legal history that, apart from other issues, is infamously remembered as the country’s first instance of terrorism, which was dealt with by a special Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) (TADA) Court. In this case, India’s former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on May 21, 1991, in Sriperumbuder through a suicide bomber, and along with him, 15 other people lost their lives standing nearby. The charges of conspiracy for assassination were levied on various individuals, but at last only four of them were held guilty and given a death sentence, which was later commuted to imprisonment for life by the Tamil Nadu government. And recently, in the year 2022, the Supreme Court of India ordered the premature release of all the convicts who were involved in the assassination.

Download Now

Apart from the charges of conspiracy under Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860, several other legal provisions were also involved in this case from Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973; Evidence Act, 1872; Arms Act, 1959; Explosive Substance Act, 1908; Passport Act, 1967; Foreigners Act, 1946, Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933; and TADA Act, 1987.

Background of the case

On 29th July 1987, the India-Sri Lanka Peace Accord was signed between India and Sri Lanka, which is considered the main reason behind the assassination of PM Rajiv Gandhi.

A civil war was going on in Sri Lanka in 1983 between Sri Lankan Sinhalese and Tamils. At that time, around 70% of Sri Lanka’s population was Sinhalese, and 23% were Tamils. These Tamils were also of two categories, i.e., Sri Lankan Tamils and Indian Tamils. Actually, before Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948, some Tamils from India used to get migrated by Britishers to Sri Lanka for fieldwork purposes, and after attaining independence, some of the Indian Tamils decided to stay there only. With time, in Sri Lanka, many government posts were occupied by the Tamils, and the Sinhalese community had a fear that they might get overpowered by the Tamils. So to sideline the Tamils, many reforms were brought in Sri Lanka, such as declaring Sinhala as the official language of Sri Lanka, giving reservations in education to Sinhalese, and declaring Buddhism as the primary religion of Sri Lanka. Overall, efforts were made to create a hell-like situation for the Tamils.

In this harsh situation, a man named Velupillai Prabhakaran came in front, who is considered the mastermind behind the formation of the rebel group called “LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam)”. This group was formed mainly for two reasons. First, to get protection from the unfair treatment of the Sinhalese community, and second, to create an independent country for the Tamil-speaking region separate from Sri Lanka.

So, overall, the whole clash at that moment was only between the LTTE group and the Sinhalese community, or the army of Sri Lanka, which represents the Sinhalese community.

Initially, it seemed that the problems were being solved, but as time passed, the situation became worse than before. Both communities keep attacking each other’s people, killing and harassing numerous common people. By that time, the war, which was only in Sri Lanka at that time, had started showing its effects in India as well. The Tamil community in India started pressuring the Indian government to take some steps to protect the Indian Tamils present in Sri Lanka. The government of that time was led by PM Rajiv Gandhi, who agreed to interfere in this matter by supplying essentials to Sri Lanka. At first, the Sri Lankan Government didn’t like this behaviour of the Indian Government, but after getting warnings to stop the atrocities against the Tamils, they agreed to show some leniency and made the Sri Lankan Tamils accept the Indian sending of essential supplies.

After this, the Sri Lankan government came forward to talk about this matter with the Indian government. Rajiv Gandhi accepted their proposal and went on a visit to Colombo, Sri Lanka. There, Sri Lankan President J.R. Jayawardene and Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi met, and the India-Sri Lanka Peace Accord was signed by them, which mainly dealt with two demands. 

  • The first was that the Sri Lankan government provided all the basic rights and amenities to the Tamils present there, and 
  • The second was that, in return, all the Tamil militants and rebel groups, including the LTTE, would surrender their weapons. 

To ensure that everything went smoothly, PM Rajiv Gandhi decided to meet Velupillai Prabhakaran so that he could make him understand the importance of the peace accord for both sides. At that moment, Prabhakaran agreed, but on the date of the signing of the accord, numerous riots occurred in Colombo, which forced the Sri Lankan President J.R. Jayawardene to divert their army forces from Tamil regions to Colombo. But to tackle the current situation in the Tamil region, the Sri Lankan President requested PM Rajiv Gandhi for military support from India, to which they agreed. And in just 6 hours, the IPKF (Indian Peace Keeping Force) was called to Sri Lanka from India. This move of PM Rajiv Gandhi was criticised because this step made the Indian forces stand against the Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka.

After the IPKF was called to control the situation, initially the LTTE members started surrendering their weapons, but after some time, a war-like situation again emerged, this time between the LTTE members and the Indian forces.

On one hand, clashes were going on between the Indian forces and the LTTE, and on the other hand, in 1989, a new President of Sri Lanka was appointed, who was Ranasinghe Premdasa, and Premdasa joined hands with the LTTE. But LTTE proposed a condition that the IPKF be sent back to India, and the same was ordered by Premdasa.

In India also, elections were held in 1989, and Rajiv Gandhi lost the PM position, and V.P. Singh was chosen as the new PM of India. And they also agreed to call back the IPKF from Sri Lanka to India.

Time passed, and in 1991, elections were proposed to be held again as the V.P. Singh government lost the vote of no confidence. During the election campaigns, Rajiv Gandhi once said that if their party came into power, they would send the IPKF back to Sri Lanka. This news was heard by Prabhakaran, and he decided to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi before he won the elections and send back the IPKF to Sri Lanka. Following this, Prabhakaran and the intelligence team of the LTTE made a plan to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi, and their plan was successfully executed on 21st May 1991.

Facts of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Nalini (1999) 

  1. In order to prevent the intervention of the Indian government by the IKPF, the LTTE militant group decided to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi so that he couldn’t win the next elections in India and send back the forces to Sri Lanka.
  2. The key members involved in this mission were Sivarasan, Subha, Nalini (A-1), Murugan (A-3), and Dhanu (DA). A few also supported them at many stages before and after their mission. The members were given training regarding the use of explosives. A Sri Lankan girl named Dhanu (DA), who was a member of the LTTE, was selected as the human bomb, and others were given several tasks to assist her during her act.
  3. Nalini (A-1) was an ordinary Indian middle-class family girl who used to work for a private firm. She got involved with the LTTE and assassination conspiracy as she developed a fondness for Murugan (A-3) (an LTTE activist) and in fact, wanted to marry him. Thus, she kept helping the LTTE members in the mission by providing the required logistics. 
  4. The conspirators arrived in India using false identities and forged documents. Then they all spread to different locations to prepare for the assassination task.
  5. Santhan (A-2), Murugan (A-3), Shankar (A-4), Vijayanandan (A-5), Ruban (A-6), Kanagasabapathy (A-7), Athirai (A-8), Robert Payas (A-9), Jayakumar (A-10), Shanthi (A-11), Vijayan (A-12), Selvaluxmi (A-13), Bhaskaran (A-14), Rangam (A-24), and Vicky (A-25), along with the deceased accused Sivarasan, Dhanu (DA), Subha, Nero, Gundu (Trichy) Santhan (A-2), Suresh Master, Dixon, Amman, Driver Anna, and Jamuna secretly entered into India from Sri Lanka and through other methods at different times during the specified period of criminal conspiracy.
  6. They went to many election rallies to see the arrangements made for the politicians so as to get an idea of how much security would be around Rajiv Gandhi and in what manner they could approach him.
  7. Sivarasan, along with his team, prepared the explosive device to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi.
  8. Sivarasan (DA) brought Santhan (A-2), Shankar (A-4), Vijayanandan (A-5), and Ruban (A-6) along with the deceased accused Dhanu (DA), Subha, Nero, and Driver Anna to Kodikkarai and arranged accommodation for other accused at various locations in Tamil Nadu to helped in executing the object of the criminal conspiracy.
  9. The conspirators remained in touch throughout their preparations with the LTTE leaders present in Sri Lanka through wireless communication to receive instructions and updates. The plan was finalised to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi at the Sriperumbudur campaign rally.
  10. Arivu (A-18) visited Jaffna and other places in Sri Lanka along with Irumborai (A-19) clandestinely in June 1990 and on 4.5.1991 purchased a Kawasaki motorcycle at Madras so that movement could be done throughout swiftly of himself and one or the other of the co-conspirators arranged money for printing and publication of the compilation described as “The Satanic Force” and sent a copy of the same to Prabhakaran (absconding) through Sivarasan (DA). Another group through Murugan (A-3) purchased a battery for making the wireless apparatus work and the other two battery cells for detonating the belt bomb which would be used by Dhanu (DA) for the murder of Rajiv Gandhi.
  11. Arivu (A-18) gave film roll to Haribabu (DA) for taking photographs of events, who also purchased a sandalwood garland from Poompuhar Handicrafts, Mount Road Madras, which was utilised by Dhanu (DA) for garlanding Rajiv Gandhi and to deceive and gain access under the VVIP portion under the guise of garlanding;
  12. On 21st May 1991, Rajiv Gandhi arrived at Sriperumbudur to address an election rally, and as planned, Dhanu (DA), Nalini (A-1), Haribabu (DA), Sivarasan, Subha, and Murugan (A-3) held their positions.
  13. The ground where Rajiv Gandhi would address the rally was divided into two halves, and on one side, a special area was made where some people were allowed to meet Rajiv Gandhi closely. Dhanu (DA), the human bomb, took advantage of the crowd and mingled with the participants who were standing in the special area to meet Rajiv Gandhi. Dhanu (DA) dressed herself in such a clothing that she could conceal a belt bomb and its detonator attached thereto under her clothing for activating the same when with Rajiv Gandhi reach near her.
  14. After a few minutes, Rajiv Gandhi approached the rally ground and started meeting the people present there. When he approached Dhanu (DA), she first put a garland on him, and then, under the pretext of touching Rajiv Gandhi feet, she bent and detonated the bomb strapped to her body.
  15. Immediately, the bomb blasted, resulting in the death of Rajiv Gandhi, along with 15 other people standing nearby. In this blast, Dhanu (DA) and Haribabu (DA) (a photographer involved in clicking the pictures of the incident) also died on the spot. Several others were injured there.
  16. After the blast, Nalini (A-1) ran away from the place of the incident with the deceased accused Sivarasan and Subha, and reached at the residence of Jayakumar (A-10) and Shanthi (A-11), and took refuge in Jayakumar’s (A-10) residence.
  17. Soon after the blast, emergency services rushed to the scene of the incident to provide aid, and the local police and agencies started their investigation into the matter. The case was taken over by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) and SIT (Special Investigation Team), looking into the seriousness of the incident and its national significance.
  18. During the investigation, several pieces of evidence were gathered, including forensic reports, photographs from the camera of Haribabu (DA) that survived the blast, communication records, and witness testimonies. On the basis of this evidence, several people were arrested, including Nalini (A-1), Murugan (A-3), and others. Sivarasan and Subha committed suicide when cornered by the police.
  19. The CBI filed charges against 26 individuals under various laws, including the Indian Penal Code, TADA, Wireless Communication Act, Explosive Substances Act, and others.

Issues raised 

  1. Whether the accused, Nalini (A-1), is liable for assassination even though she did not commit the act?
  2. Whether the accused, Nalini (A-1) and others, be held liable under the provisions of the TADA Act?
  3. Whether the confession made by one accused is admissible as evidence against another co-accused?
  4. Was the death penalty provided to the accused justified for the act?

Arguments of the parties

Arguments of the prosecution

  1. The prosecution argued that there was no doubt Nalini (A-1) was not a member of the LTTE group at the beginning of the conspiracy, but she still helped the existing members of the group by providing them with logistics and a place to stay. It was only because of Nalini (A-1) that the other conspirators were able to gather information about the places. Moreover, Nalini (A-1) was also present at the place of the assassination to support Dhanu (DA). This shows her active involvement in the whole conspiracy, and thus, as per Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, being a part of the conspiracy to commit a crime makes her equally liable for the crime as other accused persons. 
  2. It was highlighted that the assassination was purely an act of terrorism. The LTTE,  through this assassination, had not only killed a reputed national leader of the country, but this act has also instilled fear in the minds of people, disrupted the public order, and delayed the elections of the country. This clearly shows that their intent behind the assassination was to overthrow the government as established by law, and all this was done with the aid of explosive substances. Combining all these incidents clearly shows that the accused persons are liable to be charged under the relevant provisions of the TADA Act.

Also, because Nalini (A-1) had knowingly facilitated the commission of this assassination, which is a disruptive activity, it was contended that she should also be punished under the provisions of the TADA Act.

  1. As per Section 15 of the TADA Act, a confession made by a person before a police officer, not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police is admissible as evidence for that person and can also be used against any co-accused who is charged and tried in the same case. Upon investigation, the CBI recorded various confessions, and many of them were corroborated with each other, such as the confession of Murugan (A-3), which stands corroborated with the confession of his co-accused Nalini (A-1), Santhan (A-2), Arivu, Bhagyanathan, and Padma. So, all the essentials of the required provision are fulfilled, and thus a confession by the accused can be used against the co-accused as well.
  2. The prosecution demanded the death penalty for all the accused involved in the assassination, as their act was very heinous and extraordinarily disruptive to the whole nation. They all have a common intention to commit a crime, and thus all should be made equally liable. This case also falls under the ambit of the rarest of rare cases, as the object of the conspiracy was not fulfilled with the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and the killing of several others, but it continued even after this incident. The LTTE planned to target various places and persons across the country as well.

Arguments of the defence

  1. The defence put forth the argument that Nalini (A-1) was not fully aware of the final plan and its deadly consequences. She was only doing the peripheral activities, and that too at the request of Murugan (A-3) because she liked him. Thus, Nalini (A-1) lacked the mens rea, which is requisite to hold anyone guilty of a crime. Moreover, being present at the scene of the incident does not equate to her direct involvement in the assassination.

Also, it was argued that some people who joined the conspiracy after the motive of the conspiracy was achieved were all tried together, which resulted in great prejudice in the investigation.

  1. The defence challenged the applicability of the provisions of the TADA Act, arguing that the evidence produced by the prosecution does not show if any offence under Section 3 or Section 4 of the TADA has been made. Neither the killing of Rajiv Gandhi could be considered a terrorist act under Section 3 of the TADA Act, nor is there any other disruptive activity as per Section 4 of the same Act. It was claimed that the incident was politically motivated, and not to terrorize the public or create instability in the country. 
  2. The defence further pleaded that because Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act are not applicable, thus all the confessions considered under Section 15 of the TADA Act should also not be considered valid. Moreover, the confession of Nalini (A-1) could not be relied on because she also later reversed her remarks, stating that it was made under duress. The defence also cited certain judicial precedents in which the courts have ruled against the admissibility of such confessions.
  3. It was argued that the prosecution wrongly stated that the conspiracy was from a period of 1987 to 1992 because, in actual fact, no such signs were shown even before the day of the assassination, and thus, this case does not fall under the ambit of the rarest of the rare cases. It was pleaded that mitigating circumstances should be taken into consideration, and moreover, Nalini (A-1) and others have shown a potential for rehabilitation throughout the case, so a death sentence would be excessive. Also, there was no motive for the accused and other co-accused to overawe the Government or to create terror, as alleged by the prosecution. Section 3 of the TADA Act requires that the criminal act be done with the requisite intention or motive, and unfortunately, the prosecution fails to prove it. Thus, there is a lack of intention as to how the provisions of TADA are to be applied.

Legal aspects involved in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Nalini (1999)

TADA: Terrorist and Disruptive Activities) Act, 1987

TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities) Act is the main Act around which this whole case revolves. While the case continued, this Act lapsed due to several irregularities. It was brought in the year 1985, and just a decade later, in the year 1995, it lapsed. This Act was introduced to bring special provisions for preventing and coping with terrorist and disruptive activities. From the time this Act was brought, it was getting criticism due to several reasons, for instance, it was said that the provisions of this Act were so stringent that they were overriding some of the provisions of the CrPC and Indian Constitution. This Act introduced several new criminal offences which were very open-ended, the police officials were given more powers that were being misused, and the rights of the arrested persons and their safeguards were reduced. The provision of confession was also criticized as the police through torture used to extract the confessions which were considered relevant to a great extent, unless it was proven that they were not voluntary. In just a decade, more than 75,000 people were arrested under this TADA Act, and 95% of those cases ended up in the release of the person, and only 2% was the conviction rate under this Act. 

  • Section 3: Section 3 of the TADA Act discusses the punishment for terrorist acts  aimed at intimidating the government or terrorising people. This Section imposes stringent punishments such as death penalty and life imprisonment, along with a fine. The punishment under this Section must involve acts that involve bombs, firearms, or any other hazardous substances that can cause death, injury or damage to the property and in this case, through investigation, it was found that the accused were the ones only who performed the conspiracy and prepared the explosives with their team.
  • Section 4 of the TADA Act provides punishment for anyone involved in disruptive activities. Disruptive activities include actions that disrupt the sovereignty of India and its territorial integrity or support the secession or succession of any part of India. This Section also punishes anyone who harbours or conceals or makes any such attempt any disruptionist. The maximum imprisonment under this provision is imprisonment for life, and the minimum punishment is five years imprisonment. Under this case, it was alleged that assassinating a former Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, creates a disruptive environment in the country and hampers the sovereignty of the nation. Also, the TADA Court accepted the confessions as valid evidence under Section 4 which significantly influenced the convictions of the accused.
  • Section 5 of the TADA Act states that any person in possession of any arms or ammunition mentioned in the Arms Rules, 1962, or bombs or some other explosive substances without authorization, will be punished for maximum life imprisonment, and minimum imprisonment of five years. Dhanu, the suicide bomber, utilized an explosive device to execute the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Apart from this, the investigation revealed a range of items, including explosives, detonators and weapons, that were associated with the accused.
  • Section 15 of the TADA Act any confession made by a person before a police officer who is not below the rank of Superintendent of Police and which is recorded either in writing or on any mechanical device, can be later considered as evidence against that person in the court for any offence under this Act or related rules. A condition attached to this Section is that before recording the confession, the person making the confession shall be informed prior in hand that they are not under any obligation to give that confession. The police officer also shall record the statement after he is fully satisfied that the person making the confession is making it voluntarily after asking necessary questions from that individual. Under normal circumstances, the confessions made to a police officer will not be considered as evidence, but the provisions of TADA overrides this general principle and rules that the confessions of the accused Nalini, Murugan and others during the investigation are admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.

To know more about TADA, 1987, click here. 

IPC: Indian Penal Code, 1860

  • Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code defines the term criminal conspiracy. As per this definition, an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act, or achieve a legal act by illegal means, can be convicted under this offence. The agreement shall be accompanied by an act to qualify an offence of a criminal conspiracy. The illegal act under this can be either the main objective of the agreement, or can be just a part of the overall objective. The prosecution laid down evidence of meetings, planning sessions and communication between the accused and their connection with the LTTE through which they tried to establish that an agreement was made to assassinate Rahi Gandhi, and later on, the Court also applied Section 120-A and Section 120-B to convict the accused.
  • Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code provides the punishment for the offence of criminal conspiracy. As per this provision, where a criminal conspiracy is made by any person for committing an offence which is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for two years or more, then those persons shall be punished in the same manner as if they had abetted that offence. Apart from this, the persons participating in the criminal conspiracy, but not including a conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid, can be punishable with imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both.

To know more about conspiracy under IPC, click here.

Trial procedure

  1. Immediately next day, 22nd May 1991, at 1:15 A.M., the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 307, 302, and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Indian Explosives Act, 1872. The trial of the case, however, began in 1994 and lasted under various courts for many years.
  2. During the course of the investigation, several accused persons were arrested, and a few confessions were also extracted under Section 15 of the TADA Act. As proof, the camera of Haribabu (DA) was recovered from the scene of the incident, which contains several photographs before the blast, and some of them contain the presence of the accused, Sivarasan, Dhanu (DA), Subha, and Nalini (A-1) at the scene.
  3. From the confession of Bhagyanathan (A-20)  it was revealed that Sivarasan was guiding all the accused at the scene of the incident. He was the one who took Dhanu (DA) with him, and by giving the woman constable present there Rs. 500, they moved to go into the front row where Rajiv Gandhi would come and meet some of the common people. He was the one who prepared the plan of escape after the blast. Also, it was Sivarasan alone who asked Arivu (A-18) to bring batteries, clips, wire, and other material for the preparation of the bomb, as well as a wireless set for contacting LTTE Headquarters in Sri Lanka.
  4. Other evidence, such as fake identification documents, wireless communication devices, and notes, was displayed to establish the involvement of the accused in the conspiracy. Wireless stations used by Sivarasan and Pottu Amman were also found, through which they communicated with each other. 
  5. The CBI filed a charge sheet in the designated TADA Court against 26 accused under the above-described Acts. The trial was initiated in the special court designated under the TADA, which handles cases related to terrorism and disruptive activities. The prosecution presented the confessions of 17 accused and many pieces of evidence. Around 288 witnesses and 1449 documents were examined and placed before the Court.
  6. In total, 251 charges were framed by the Designated Court, out of which charge no. 1 was common to all the accused, and the rest 250 charges were charged separately under different heads for various accused. These charges can be divided into three main categories-
  1. Under Section 120-B read with Section 302 Indian Penal Code;
  2. Under Sections 3, 4 and 15 of the TADA Act; and
  3. (i) Under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code

(ii) Under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908

(iii) Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959

(iv) Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967

(v) Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946

(vi) Section 6 (1A) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933.

  1. Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the statements of the accused were recorded.
  2. All these procedural rules led to prolonged delays in the trial procedure. This happened mainly due to the admission of irrelevant evidence which ended in a protracted legal process that could have been more efficient and focused otherwise. Several factors were responsible for this delay discussed in detail below.
  3. The first and foremost factor is the complexity of the case itself. There were numerous accused and defendants in this case and multiple charges which led to prolonged proceedings. Our justice system ensures that every person is given a fair chance and all legal requirements are met which involves coordinating schedules and managing the volume of evidence, and this results in unintentional delay.
  4. Secondly, in this case, many pieces of evidence that were not directly relevant to the case were applied against the accused, which further complicated the proceedings. As all this confuses the judges, it makes the task of delivering the verdict difficult.
  5. In addition to these specific issues, there were some general factors also responsible for the delay of the trial such as overcrowded court dockets, shortage of judges, and administrative inefficiencies.  

Judgement in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Nalini (1999)

  1. After this incident of assassination and blast, on 23rd June 1991, the state of Tamil Nadu was notified under TADA, and on 14th May 1992, the LTTE was declared an unlawful association under the provisions of the TADA Act of 1957.
  2. After examination of all the evidence and considering all the materials placed, the Designated Court found all the 26 accused guilty of all the charges framed against them.
  3. The Court specially brought into notice the fact during declaring the judgement that along with Rajiv Gandhi, 15 other common people also lost their lives, many of whom were policemen on duty, namely: (i) P.K. Gupta, Personal Security Officer to Rajiv Gandhi, (ii) Latha Kannan, (iii) Kokilavani, (iv) Iqbal, Superintendent of Police, (v) Rajaguru, Inspector of Police, (vi) Edward Joseph, Inspector of Police, (vii) Ethiraj, Sub Inspector of Police, (viii) Sundararaju Pillai, Police constable, (ix) Ravi, Commando Police constable, (x) Dharman, Police constable, (xi) Chandra, woman police constable, (xii) Santhani Begum, (xiii) Darryl Peter, (xiv) Kumari Saroja Devi and (xv) Munuswamy. Apart from them, many others suffered grievous and simple injuries in that incident.
  4. At the initial stage, the Designated Court, formed under the TADA Act, found all 26 accused guilty of various offences, including murder, conspiracy, and terrorism. The Court awarded the death sentence to all the accused.
  5. For the confirmation of these death sentences, the case was transferred to the Madras High Court, where various punishments were prescribed to various accused. Some were just awarded the punishment of fines of varying amounts, some were awarded rigorous imprisonment for different periods, and some were affirmed the death sentence which was given by the trial court, but only for the four accused, namely Nalini (A-1), Santhan (A-2), Murugan (A-3) and Arivu (A-18). For the rest of the accused, their punishments were commuted to imprisonment for various years, depending on their involvement in the offence.
  6. The Court observed that they didn’t find any strict proof for bringing any offence under Section 3 or 4 of the TADA Act. According to them, neither any terrorist act nor any other disruptive activity has occurred under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA. Thus, charges under this Act fail against all the accused.
  7. The Court pronounced the sentence of the death penalty to the four main accused of the incident, namely, Nalini (A-1), Santhan (A-2), Murugan (A-3), and Arivu (A-18), for their grievous acts under various provisions of law, including Section 109, 120-B, 302, 324, 326, along with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
  8. Four other accused, Dhanasekaran (A-23), N. Rajasuriya (A-24), Vicky (A-25), and Ranganath (A-26), were given rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years for the offences under Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code. Ranganath (A-26) was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code.
  9. Rangam (A-24) and Vicky (A-25) entered India through illicit channels without possessing any valid travel documents, and they also unauthorizedly stayed in India. So, being foreign nationals, they have also been convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. Conviction of a sentence under these charges was not challenged.
  10. Some of the accused, namely Shanthi (A-11), Selvaluxmi (A-13), and Shanmugavadivelu (A-15), were initially awarded imprisonment, but later, due to a lack of sufficient evidence against them, they were released from all the charges, and their conviction was also set aside.
  11. Nalini (A-1) and some other accused filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of India against their death penalty sentence. The Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of Nalini (A-1) and the other three accused as awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the Madras High Court. Other accused were acquitted by the Supreme Court on the grounds of insufficient evidence of their direct involvement in the assassination.
  12. Following this, Nalini (A-1) and the other accused approached the President of India, requesting pardon for their death sentence. But the President denied their request, and no pardon was given to them.
  13. However, the Supreme Court of India, after this decision of the President, determined that the decision of the President is not final and that the Court has the power to review their decision. This time the Court again examines the evidence, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances of the case, such as the cooperation of the accused during the investigation, their good behaviour during the time they were in jail, and also that by that time, Nalini (A-1) had delivered a daughter. Thus, the Court finds that giving the death penalty at this stage would be an extreme step. Moreover, she had already spent a lot of time behind bars during the course of the investigation; thus, some relief could be provided on these grounds.
  14. Thus, in 1999-2000, the Supreme Court of India upheld Nalini (A-1)’s and other accused’s convictions but remitted their punishment of death sentence to life imprisonment.
  15. Coming down the line, in the timeline of more than 2 decades, several other petitions and mercy pleas were made to the President and Governor of Tamil Nadu. In 2018, some were released on parole, and some were released completely.
  16. Finally, on 11th November 2022, the Supreme Court of India ordered the immediate release of all the remaining six convicts, namely, Nalini (A-1), Santhan (A-2), Murugan (A-3), Robert Pius (A-9), Jayakumar (A-10), and  Ravichandran (A-16) who all were serving life sentences for more than 3 decades. However, Nalini (A-1) and Ravichandran were already on parole from 27th December 2021 until that date, as sanctioned by the Tamil Nadu government as per their State Suspension and Sentence Rules.

Case laws 

Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1994)

This case was referred as it upheld the constitutional validity of the confessions of the accused recorded by the police officers. The court in this case considered that if the provisions of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)) are complied with, then such confessions would not be considered a breach of Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court also laid down some guidelines to be followed while recording the confessions under Section 15 of the TADA Act, and it was asserted that these guidelines were followed in this case as well, so the confessions as per Section 15 of the TADA Act shall be considered admissible as they were laid down along with procedural safeguards that must be ensured to protect the rights of the accused. The guidelines for the admissibility of such confessions are as follows-

  1. Rank of the officer: The police officer taking the confessions should not be lower than the rank of a Superintendent of Police.
  2. Recording of confession: The confessions shall only be recorded in the manner mentioned in the Section, which includes writing down the confession.
  3. Voluntariness: Before taking the confession, the person making the confession shall be informed that he is not bound to make any confession, and if he still prefers to make it, then that confession can be used as evidence against him. This ensures that the confessions taken from the person are voluntary in nature, and not taken by any force.
  4. Reason to believe: Unless the police officer is confident or has reason to believe that the confession is being made voluntarily, the police officer shall not record the confession. If needed, necessary questions be asked if the person becomes confident that the confession is made voluntarily.
  5. Admissibility of trial: The confession made under this section can be considered admissible under the trial of the person who made the confession, along with the co-accused, abettors, or conspirators, provided that all those are charged and tried in the same case together with the accused.
  6. Compliance with constitutional safeguards: The provision to record confessions under this section is designed to be aligned with Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution which protects individuals against self-incrimination.

Abdul Razak Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (1987), Nazir Ahmad vs. King-Emperor (1936) and Neharoo Mangtu Satnami vs. Emperor (1937)

These cases provided that the signature of the accused must be taken after recording his confession by the Magistrate. This is a mandatory and salutary provision and has been provided to ensure that the interests of the accused are safeguarded. And if the signatures of the accused are not obtained, that confession would be considered inadmissible.

In all these cases the issues are mainly the same which revolves around the rules to be followed while recording the confessions, and the court under all cases stressed that as per Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Section 183 of the BNSS), it is compulsory to obtain the signature of the accused on the confession which is to be recorded by a Magistrate. In case, there is a failure to obtain the signature of the accused, then it would be considered a significant irregularity that could not be rectified through Section 463 of the CrPC (Section 509 of the BNSS) as well.

Sardar Singh Caveeshar vs. State of Maharashtra (1964) and Kehar Singh & others vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1988)

These cases were referred to clarify the essence of conspiracy. These cases show that there shall be an agreement to do one or the other acts as described in Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code (Section 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)) by two or more persons. Their agreement could be proved either by direct evidence or may be inferred from the conduct and/or acts of the parties, and the very agreement would be considered an offence and be punishable if proved.

These cases highlight that the acts, statements, and writing of the co-conspirators, even those made after the formation of the conspiracy, as per Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)), would be considered admissible against the other co-conspirators. Such admissibility is found in the fact that such evidence plays a significant role in proving the existence and scope of the conspiracy.

Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980)

This case was referred to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances while imposing the sentence of the death penalty and to ascertain that whether this case falles under rarest of rare case or not. Sections 354(3) and Section 235(2) of the CrPC (Section 393(3) and Section 258(2) of the BNSS) were also observed to ensure the constitutional validity of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 103 of the BNS). Section 354 of the CrPC says that where the court convicts any person for an offence for which punishment prescribed is either death or life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term of years, then the court shall tell the reasons while pronouncing the sentence. Section 235 of the CrPC talks about the judgement of acquittal or conviction by the judge, and where the judge convicts a person, he shall allow the accused to be heard on the matter of the sentence before deciding and then pass the sentence according to the law.

This case delivered a landmark judgement introducing the “rarest of the rare” doctrine, emphasising the importance of the careful and circumspect application of the death penalty. This case helped in enhancing the jurisprudence surrounding capital punishment in India ensuring that careful consideration be made while declaring the death penalty cases.

Critical analysis of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Nalini

This case of the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Nalini, which is also popularly known as the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, was criticised at various stages during the trial as well as even after its conclusion.

The delay of the court was criticised as more than three decades were spent by our Indian judiciary on such a sensitive case. And even after all this, in the end, all the accused/convicts were released by the Court. This order of release is declared by many political parties as unacceptable, as they believe that it would set a wrong precedent for the future.

The provisions of the TADA Act were also questioned in this case on the grounds that this Act orders the detention of a person without trial, the rights of the accused also get compromised and limited, which affects their chances of a fair defence, and many more, which eventually led to declaring the Act unconstitutional. Although the Act is repealed now. 

This case also brings to light the point that a country’s diplomatic decisions should be taken with the utmost care. Some believed that the decision of Rajiv Gandhi to send IPKF to Sri Lanka was a wrong decision, which eventually led to all this.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, it can be said that this case reflects a complex interplay of justice, legal principles, and human rights considerations. This case brings to light the need for reforms in both legal and non-legal aspects of our country. This underscored the need to maintain a balance between the demands of justice and the protection of human rights while ensuring due process of law. The security and defence of the country need to be improved, and diplomatic relations need to be taken in a more sensitive manner because this case clearly shows how a small decision can take the lives of so many innocent people.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

What are the main charges brought against the accused Nalini and other accused in this case?

Nalini and the 25 other accused were charged with several offences under various criminal laws, including murder, conspiracy to murder, making and using forged documents, illegally entering in territories of India through illicit channels, and violation of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). These all charges were founded on alleged engagement in the planning and successful completion of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination.

What role did international connections play in this case?

During the investigation of this case, it was found that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) were involved in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. The LTTE is an international terrorist organisation based in Sri Lanka. During the speech of Rajiv Gandhi in their election campaigns, they said that if they won the next elections, they would send the Indian force, IPKF, back to Sri Lanka. This speech triggered the members of LTTE and they plotted to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi. This involvement of LTTE operatives in planning the attack clearly showed that it was an international issue and its impact on national security.

What was the significance of this judgement delivered on 11 May 1999?

The judgement delivered on 11th May 1999 had a significant impact on Indian history as it resulted in the successful conviction of several accused, including Nalini, for their involvement and completion of the conspiracy and assassination of the former Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi. The decision of the court was based on several pieces of evidence and confessions submitted keeping in mind the severity of the charges. It emphasised the critical role of maintaining justice in matters concerning national security and terrorism.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here