Tamil Nadu government, on Wednesday, filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against Constitution bench order in Rajiv Gandhi assassins’ remission case. On July 20, the Madras High Court rejected the plea of one, Nalini Sriharan, who is currently serving life imprisonment following her conviction in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. Nalini had pleaded for her release in accordance with a 1994 Government Order that allowed convicts who had served 20 years or more to be released. She currently serves time in a Vellore prison for women. Justice M Sathyanarayana in response to Sriharan’s plea said that seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu government to consider her plea under Article 161 of the Constitution cannot be granted until the litigation before apex court reached finality. “In the light of the fact that the investigation is conducted by the CBI, coupled with the order of the Supreme Court, this court for the present cannot direct the state government to consider the representation of the petitioner,” the judge said.
Rajiv Gandhi assassins’ remission case: Tamil Nadu govt files a review in SC
Tamil Nadu government, on Wednesday, filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against Constitution bench order in Rajiv Gandhi assassins’ remission case. On July 20, the Madras High Court rejected the plea of one, Nalini Sriharan, who is currently serving life imprisonment following her conviction in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. Nalini had pleaded for her release in accordance with a 1994 Government Order that allowed convicts who had served 20 years or more to be released. She currently serves time in a Vellore prison for women. Justice M Sathyanarayana in response to Sriharan’s plea said that seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu government to consider her plea under Article 161 of the Constitution cannot be granted until the litigation before apex court reached finality. “In the light of the fact that the investigation is conducted by the CBI, coupled with the order of the Supreme Court, this court for the present cannot direct the state government to consider the representation of the petitioner,” the judge said.
Related Post:
Add Comments