New Delhi: Terming the legal profession as a “noble one”, Congress MP from Mayiladuthurai Sudha R. moved the Madras High Court Wednesday, challenging the enrolment of A. G. Perarivalan in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. The petition said his enrolment “void” and illegal because Perarivalan was convicted in the 1991 Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
Explaining her reasons for filing the petition, Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) MP Sudha R. told ThePrint, “Perarivalan killed the former PM of our country and 16 people died. Their families are still waiting for justice while the accused is enjoying his life. He also conspired with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a banned Tamil militant organisation involved in Gandhi’s killing, and still continues to be an active participant there.”
Pointing out that Perarivalan was handed a life sentence for his role in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, the Congress MP said, “Various Supreme Court judgments have reiterated that life sentence means a sentence for the remainder of a person’s life, and his mercy petition was rejected in 2011. The only reason the court allowed his release in 2022 was owing to an inordinate delay in deciding his second mercy petition which he had filed in 2016. There was no clean chit given to him.”
Acting on the Congress MP’s petition, the Madras High Court today sought responses from the Centre, the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict Perarivalan himself.
A two-judge bench of Justices Victoria Gowri and N. Senthilkumar posted the matter for further hearing on 9 June. In 2024, Sudha R. was elected from the Mayiladuthurai constituency in Tamil Nadu.
Essentially, the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Sudha R. challenges Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, as unconstitutional, and seeks to revoke Perarivalan’s enrollment.
Terming the legal profession as a “noble one”, the plea says that multiple young people enter the profession with high hopes, and advocates must not indulge in any activity that may tend to lower the image of the profession in the society.
The provision states that no person can be admitted as an advocate on a state roll if they have been convicted in an offence of “moral turpitude”, if they have been convicted for an untouchability-related offence, and if they have been dismissed or removed from employment or office under the government. Significantly, the only exception to this criteria is if at least 2 years have lapsed since an individual’s release.
In her plea, however, the Congress MP challenges this exception saying that the term “release” cannot be stretched to include persons convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment or the death penalty.
According to the Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, crimes involving moral turpitude include “wicked, deviant behaviour” which constitutes an immoral, unethical, or unjust departure from the society’s standards of acceptable behaviour.
The Congress MP’s plea argues that Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 allows persons convicted and sentenced to death and life imprisonment to enroll as advocates. This provision also violates Article 14 (right to equality) since it is arbitrary, and offers no “intelligible difference” between convicted persons and those who have been given the death penalty, the plea states.
‘No ulterior motive’
As a lawyer who has been practising before the Madras HC, and other courts in Tamil Nadu, and has served as the office bearer of the Madras HC Advocates Association, the Congress MP’s plea argues that she is conscious of the responsibilities of a lawmaker and was shocked to see the news of Perarivalan’s enrollment on 27 April.
Pointing out that she herself is a member of the lawyers’ community, who is working in the interests of the general public, the Congress MP’s plea says that she will personally bear the costs if the court finds any ulterior or personal gain-related motives.
Underlining that Perarivalan was convicted for the assasination of the former PM in a 1999 incident where 16 people lost their lives, the Congress MP’s plea argues that his death sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court in May 1999 for offences like murder, abetment, criminal conspiracy and voluntarily causing grievous hurt to another person.
Citing the SC ruling convicting Perarivalan, the Congress MP’s plea says, “Conduct of Perarivalan (A-18) before and after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi leaves no one in doubt that he was a member of the conspiracy. It is not necessary for a conspirator to be present at the scene of the crime.”
Although Perarivalan’s sentence was modified from death penalty to life imprisonment in December 2014 by the top court, he was eventually released in May 2022 by the SC as it invoked its extraordinary power to do absolute justice under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Article 142 of the Constitution deals with the top court’s power to do “complete justice” to parties, by passing any order or decree, that enables it to do such justice, in “any cause or matter pending before it”.
Saying that Perarivalan was convicted for terrorism and offences against the state in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, the Congress MP’s plea also says that he was released by the top court only on grounds of inordinate delay by the Governor in deciding the Tamil Nadu government’s recommendation for remission of his life sentence.
Pointing out that he completed his higher secondary education in an open examination stream after completing his graduation from an open university, Sudha R. also argues that Rule 5 of the Bar Council Rules, 2008, specifies that those who have graduated from open universities “directly without having any basic qualification for such studies are not eligible for admission in law courses”.
Calling Perarivalan’s degree “illegal”, Sudha R. says he was ineligible for admission to a BA. LLB programme. She also said that if lawyers convicted for criminal contempt cannot become advocates, allowing death penalty convicts to practise the law is nothing but a “gross abuse of law”.
Suspension or remission of his sentence cannot take away his conviction for heinous crimes committed against the state, the plea states, while seeking the suspension of Perarivalan’s enrollment as advocate, and an investigation into the manner of his enrollment.
His enrolment sends out a wrong message to the people, the Congress MP said. “It sends a message that anyone can come into our country, kill our Prime Minister and later get enrolled as a lawyer or doctor,” Sudha R. told ThePrint while adding that her main objective in fighting this case is to ensure social justice is done for all.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)