SC’s decision to release Shri Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins has shocked the nation’s conscience

Spokesperson: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi: He said that friends, today the Hon’ble Court has ordered release of six convicts, who had carried out the brutal, pre-meditated and heinous assassination of a former Prime Minister of the country, the late Shri Rajiv Gandhi.

This release has shocked the nation’s conscience and has invited serious concern and criticism from all sides of the political spectrum.

It sends a message to the world, an undesirable message, that we extend to these killers the benefits of our judicial magnitude. After all, they murdered in cold blood and by deliberate design a former Prime Minister.

Therefore, we frame the following questions for the nation through you in the light of today’s verdict.

1) Why has the Hon’ble Apex Court, despite being aware of the nature of the crime, the evidence that led to their conviction, the previous objection of the Governor even, sought to grant preferential treatment to those individuals, who were convicted, I repeat convicted, of so reprehensible, so horrific and so heinous a crime?

2) How will the Apex Court in the future deal with similar claims by several other similarly placed or even less seriously placed criminals or accused or rather convicts not accused?

3) If ill health is a ground for release, if good behavior is a ground for release, if conduct in custody is a ground for release, then why are so many individuals still in custody across the country? The Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be selective in applying these standards.

4) Most important friends, is the fourth point I am making. The assassination of a former Prime Minister stands on a totally different footing. A fatal attack on any PM, former or sitting, is an attack on the very sovereignty and integrity of India and cannot be dealt with on normal administrative considerations.

5) If the Petitioners before the Court were seeking relief, the principal respondent, the state was supporting the petitioners, and then it was incumbent upon the Hon’ble Court to not only call upon the Central Government as they did, but to give a lot of weight to the fact that the Central Government did not agree with the State Government.

6) The somewhat strange and possibly unintended effect of this order would be that any recommendation by any state government would be virtually binding and it would be taken as virtually dispositive by the Supreme Court, which cannot be correct.

7) And most important lastly - this is underlined by the fact, that the Court itself was cognizant of this, because they used their special unique powers under Article 142, which is indicative of the absence of their power to do a specific thing, because Article 142 is used only because you don’t have the power and you want to do some overall special justice which only the Supreme Court has the power. The INC respectfully believes that this is a wholly inapposite invocation of the drastic, ad-hoc and unique power of the Apex Court in a case involving convicted assassins of a former head of the Indian Government, which as I have explained earlier strikes at the very root of Indian sovereignty.

Without going into specifics, I only want to say that we intend to take all appropriate remedies available to us. Friday, November 11, 2022