12/27/23, 11:48 AM State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC) – LL.

B Mania




⋯
»

About  OpEd BLOG  Interview

LL.B Mania
Testimonials Contact 

LL.B Mania

https://llbmania.com/case-analysis/state-of-tamil-nadu-v-nalini-1999-scc/ 1/14
12/27/23, 11:48 AM State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC) – LL.B Mania




⋯
»

https://llbmania.com/case-analysis/state-of-tamil-nadu-v-nalini-1999-scc/ 2/14
12/27/23, 11:48 AM State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC) – LL.B Mania

November 10, 2023

State of Tamil Nadu v.

Search

Nalini (1999 SCC)

By Ipsha Shrivastava
Facts
The case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini or the Rajiv Gandhi
assassination case is a landmark case where the former Prime
Minister of India, was assassinated. The accused and
conspirator Nalini along with 26 others were held liable and
were given death sentences. Rajiv Gandhi was slain by a 
suicide bomber, Dhanu, on May 21, 1991, while campaigning
in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. Dhanu was among the 14 
people killed in the bombing. Dhanu was fitted with a bomb 
that exploded in proximity to Rajiv Gandhi. Nalini Sriharan, a
Tamil lady from Sri Lanka, was the main conspirator in the 
assassination. She was in charge of obtaining the explosives 
used in the bombing as well as transporting Dhanu to the
killing site. 

⋯
India took up the role of conciliation, when approached by the
Sri Lankan government, to settle the disputes between the »
Tamil-speaking ethnic minority and the Government of Sri
Lanka. The Sri Lankan President Mr. Jayawardane and the
Indian Prime Minister along with Velluppilai Prabhakaran,
leader of the militant organization, Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Elam (hereinafter LTTE) signed the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord of
1987. The signing of the accord resulted in the deployment of
the Indian Peace Keeping Forces (IPKF). The IPKF posed a
threat to the struggle for a separate homeland, referred to as
the ‘Tamil Elam’. The former Prime Minister of India was a
major force behind the signing of the accord. Due to the
inhuman conduct met out by the Indian Peacekeeping Forces,
the minds of the militants were filled with hostility. This
resulted in the hatching of the conspiracy which would have
served as a deterrent for any government trying to suppress
the extremists of Sri Lanka.

In the days following the assassination, Nalini was arrested

along with 25 others. A designated court tried and convicted
https://llbmania.com/case-analysis/state-of-tamil-nadu-v-nalini-1999-scc/ 3/14
12/27/23, 11:48 AM State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC) – LL.B Mania
g g
her under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
Act (TADA). Nalini was condemned to death by the appointed
court in 1998, together with three other convicts: Santhan,
Murugan, and Perarivalan. The remaining offenders received
life sentences or lesser sentences. Nalini filed an appeal with
the Supreme Court of India against her conviction and death
sentence. Given her young age and the fact that she was the
mother of a young child, the Supreme Court upheld Nalini’s
conviction but remitted her death sentence to life
imprisonment in 1999.

The Tamil Nadu government proposed the release of all seven

convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case in 2000. The
Governor of Tamil Nadu, however, refused to allow their
release. The Supreme Court granted bail to all seven
prisoners except Perarivalan, who remained in jail since he 
was a Sri Lankan national. In 2018, the Tamil Nadu

government recommended that all seven inmates be
released. However, the Governor of Tamil Nadu refused to 
approve their release.


Issues Raised 

The case brought up the following challenging issues before 

the court of law: ⋯

i. Whether the accused Nalini and others can be held »

liable under Section 32 and Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code?
ii. Whether the accused can be held liable under Section 3
and Section 4 of the TADA Act?
iii. Whether the confession by one of the accused can be
admissible as evidence against the co-accused?

Arguments by the Prosecution

Over six years, a criminal conspiracy was hatched and
developed. The conspiracy was planned in several stages, one
of which was in the year 1990 when three of the accused
landed on the Indian shore. Sivarasan was one of the most
seriously involved accused who was one of the hardcore, top-
ranking militants of LTTE. He was one of the first accused to
arrive in India in December 1990. They were primarily
intended to secure a resident for harbouring themselves. The
next batch arrived consisting of three of the accused who also
https://llbmania.com/case-analysis/state-of-tamil-nadu-v-nalini-1999-scc/ 4/14
12/27/23, 11:48 AM State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC) – LL.B Mania
e t batc a ed co s st g o t ee o t e accused o a so
secured to conceal themselves in an isolated locality.
Consequently, the appellants arrived in different batches on
the Indian shore.

In the final batch, the most dedicated militants arrived,

including Dhanu. With her, came the second accused Santhan,
the third accused was Murugan, the fourth accused Shankar,
the fifth accused Vijayanandan, and the sixth accused, Ruban.
They were seen off at Sri Lanka by Pottu Omman who was
the Chief of the Intelligence Wing of LTTE. Nalini, the first
accused, shifted in October 1990 and began residing in a
house in the High Court Colony at Madras. Nalini, along with
all the other accused, made arrangements for the
accomplishment of the offense. In pursuance of the plans,
they purchased a 9-watt golden power battery and a hideout
was prepared in Delhi. Sivarsan, along with Dhanu and her 
close friend Suba with Nalini waited for Haribabu and then all

the five proceeded to the venue of the meeting place,
Sriperumbudur. When Rajiv Gandhi arrived at the meeting 
place, Sivarasn took Dhanu to the rostrum. The explosion

immediately took 18 lives. The three conspirators, Nalini,
Suba and Sivaran ran away from the site without any delay. 
They sent the receipt of confirmation of the killing to Pottu

Omman through a wireless message. The photographs of the
accused had started to appear in the newspapers. Four of the ⋯
accused, including Nalini and her husband Murugan were »
arrested. Sivasaran, Suba and many of the LTTE activists
committed suicide to escape the punishment of the offence.
Pottu Omman, Velluppilai Prabhakaran and Akila, the deputy
chief of the Intelligence Wing were designated as ‘absconding
offenders’. The remaining 26 persons were accused of
offences under Section 302 (Punishment for murder), Section
326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by weapons or other
means), Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of an
offence committed or giving false information touching it to
screen the offender), Section 212 (talks of harbouring
offender), Section 316(culpable homicide causing death) read
with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They
were given the sentence of death.

Arguments by the Defence

The Court held Nalini, the first accused death sentence under
Section 3(1)(ii) of the Terrorist Prevention and Disruptive
https://llbmania.com/case-analysis/state-of-tamil-nadu-v-nalini-1999-scc/ 5/14
12/27/23, 11:48 AM State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC) – LL.B Mania

(Activities) Act, which states as “Whoever with intent (a) to

overawe the Government as by law established or (b) to
strike terror in the people or any section of the people (c) to
adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of
the people does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or
other explosive substances in such a manner as to cause, or as
is likely to cause, death of, or injuries to, any person or detains
any person and threatens to kill or injure such person to
compel the Government or any other person to do or abstain
from doing any act, commits a terrorist act”. It provides for
punishment of death or life imprisonment and a fine if anyone
commits a terrorist act.

The above sub-section commits itself to establishing an

intention for making anyone liable under this section. The
LTTE activists criticized the government but were never 
aimed at overthrowing any government or striking terror
among the people of the country. Velluppillai Prabhakaran 
addressed a meeting where he blatantly surrendered his 
weapons and showed his faith towards the Indian
Peacekeeping Forces in maintaining the sovereignty and 
integrity of the country. LTTE has already indicated to the 
government its friendly ties with India. Even though there
was the killing of 18 people in the blast, they never intended 
that. They were only against the old government, Rajiv ⋯
Gandhi which they intended to kill. Thus, they never intended
»
to strike terror among the people, even though there was an
anticipation of people dying apart from Rajiv Gandhi, but that
could not have surely been ascertained. In the order of this,
the charges inflicted under Section 3 of the TADA Act, could
not be sustained due to the lack of evidence.

Section 4 of the TADA Act, provided for the destruction or

killing of any person bound by oath under the constitution to
uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India or any public
servant shall be deemed to be a ‘disruptive activity’ within the
meaning of this section. But consequently, the Lok Sabha
stood dissolved then, therefore Rajiv Gandhi will not be
classified as a person “bound by oath under the constitution”.
Therefore, the charges under the provisions of Section 3 and
Section 4 could not be sustained.

Points of Contention
i. That the appellants were not only involved in the
https://llbmania.com/case-analysis/state-of-tamil-nadu-v-nalini-1999-scc/ 6/14
12/27/23, 11:48 AM State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC) – LL.B Mania
i. That the appellants were not only involved in the
assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.
ii. That the appellants were involved in a conspiracy.

The prosecutor took the help of the confessional statements

made by the appellants and recorded by the Superintendent
of Police, under Section 15 of the TADA Act. The Defence
counsel pleaded the inadmissibility of the evidence on the
ground that since no offence has been proved under TADA,
and hence, the confessions recorded cannot be used as
evidence against offences which fall outside the purview of
TADA. The learned counsel in retaliation to this, cited the
judgment in the case Kalpnath Rai v. The State. It was held
that a confession admissible under Section 15 of TADA can be
used against the co-accused. But it has its shortcoming of
incapacity of cross-examination and it is not given on any
oath. Thus the outcome is, that the confession made under 
Section 15 of TADA can be used against the conspirator but it

has no substantive value, only corroborative value.

Judgment of the Case 
The Special judge in this case who tried the case found all 26 
appellants designated as arraigned, guilty under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 120 B of 
IPC. Section 302 of IPC prescribes punishment for murder. It ⋯
states that “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with
»
death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Section 120 B provides punishment for criminal conspiracy. It
provides that a person who is a party to the offence of
criminal conspiracy shall be punished with either a death
sentence or imprisonment for life (Section 53 of IPC) or
rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more. The
accused Nalini along with the other co-accused were held
liable for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section
120A of the Indian Penal Code. It is defined as an agreement
between two or more parties to do an illegal act or to do a
legal act by illegal means. Section 43 of the I.P.C. defines
‘illegal’ as “anything that is an offence, is prohibited by law, or
gives rise to a civil action.” The proviso to Section 120A states
that merely agreeing to commit an offence constitutes
criminal conspiracy, and no overt conduct or illegal omission
is required to be proven. Only where the purpose of the
conspiracy is the performance of an illegal act that does not
constitute an offence is such an overt act required. It makes
https://llbmania.com/case-analysis/state-of-tamil-nadu-v-nalini-1999-scc/ 7/14
12/27/23, 11:48 AM State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC) – LL.B Mania

no difference whether the illegal behavior is the ultimate goal

of the agreement or merely a byproduct of it.

The Criminal Procedure Code says that the court should

adjourn the case to a future date after conviction. On that
date, the prosecution and the defence counsels must bring
the relevant material which will have a bearing on the
severity of the sentence. But in this case both the hearing on
conviction and sentencing were done on the same day within
hours. This has gone astray to the rights of the accused.

They were found guilty under the Explosive Substances Act

of 1908, Arms Act of 1959, Passport Act of 1967, the
Foreigners Act of 1946, and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy
Act of 1933. In this case, it was determined that mere
knowledge of a conspiracy did not render someone accused a

conspirator. It was decided that providing a safe haven for the
main accused was not sufficient evidence that the person was 
involved in the conspiracy; it had to be proved that there was

a meeting of minds between the parties.

In Nov 2022, the court ordered the release of all the convicts
of the case, due to the unprecedented delay of more than 
three decades already spent in jail. One of the accused,

Perarivalan had spent over 30 years in prison due to the delay
of the Governor in the matters of remission. Therefore, the ⋯
Supreme Court, under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, »
invoked special power and ordered his release.

Critical Analysis
The premature release of the convicts has been questioned
and taken into account. The decision of the Supreme Court
regarding this is totally unacceptable and erroneous. This
case has reflected flaws in the Indian judicial system which
counts with the unprecedented delay in the trial of the
prisoners. The prisoners in most cases undergo their
punishment for several years without any trial or
investigation. It is not proven whether the person undergoing
trial is actually convicted of an offence. It also points out the
non-accountability and the arbitrary discretion on part of the
Governor holding powers of pardon under Article 161 of the
Indian Constitution. The Governor, even after the
recommendations from the Cabinet, did not provide assent to
the petitions for pardon. This adds to the untimely disposal of
https://llbmania.com/case-analysis/state-of-tamil-nadu-v-nalini-1999-scc/ 8/14
12/27/23, 11:48 AM State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC) – LL.B Mania

the cases. The blast took the lives of innocent people; the
accused should not have been released without completing
their punishment. But even after this, the prisoners cannot be
held back in the prison denying their fundamental rights
under Article 20 (Protection in respect of conviction for
offences) and Article 22 (Protection against arrest and
detention in certain cases). The Tamil Nadu government had
proposed the release of the seven inmates of the case, in
2000 as well as again in 2018, but the Governor
simultaneously refused to approve the release of the
prisoners.

Precedents which work as a major source of law provide that

the duty of the court is to transverse and excite information,
including personal or any other information, which may be
relevant in passing the sentence. The TADA court did not 
show any effort in eliciting the information from the accused;
Therefore, it is an advertent mistake on their part.



While upholding the constitutional validity of the death
sentence, the court in its judgment had also held that the 
State needs to accord for the “special reasons” as to why the

case fell in the “rarest of the rare” before announcing a death
sentence. The court must take into account the relevant 
social and financial factors, such as the age of the accused
⋯
was not taken into account. Nalini who is a mother of an
infant child should have a bearing on the sentence passed. »
The oldest accused was 76 years old and two of the women
accused were mothers of minor child should have been
considered. It must also be shown that the accused could not
be reformed or rehabilitated under any circumstances and
would constitute a threat to society.

Finally, the death sentence as a deterrent form of punishment

did not accomplish its objective of dissuading potential
offenders in the future. “The principle of deterrence is totally
a dubious one”. The assassination of Indira Gandhi, the former
Prime Minister of India, by Kehar Singh was hunged to death.
But this did not act as a deterrent for the accused in the Rajiv
Gandhi case. Therefore, it is clear that a death sentence has
no deterrent effect, particularly in the areas where political
crimes are concerned. The objective of providing
punishments is based on the reformation of the criminals.
However, the death penalty falls short of the fulfillment of
this goal
https://llbmania.com/case-analysis/state-of-tamil-nadu-v-nalini-1999-scc/ 9/14
12/27/23, 11:48 AM State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC) – LL.B Mania
this goal.

Conclusion
The arbitrariness and the irresponsible conduct of the courts
in disposing of the cases without proper investigation present
a fatal killing of justice to the accused involved in the case.
The case of the State of Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu did not
fall into the ambit of the heinous crimes to be accorded a
death sentence. The mitigating factors were not taken into
consideration. Moreover, the executive power of the
Governor to decide upon the petitions for pardoning of
sentences is unfair as the Governor even refuses to take into
account the decision of the government.

The rights of the prisoners undergoing trials have already

succumbed as there is late disposal of trial, it takes for courts 
more than a decade to investigate and decide cases. This
presents another fallacy in the Indian judicial system. 
Therefore, it is necessary that justice must be provided most 
appropriately and diligently and it must count on the people
who shall be drastically affected by the judgment.


           
  ⋯
 Post Views: 1,290 »

Case Analysis Criminal Law

Previous post Next post

https://llbmania.com/case-analysis/state-of-tamil-nadu-v-nalini-1999-scc/ 10/14
12/27/23, 11:48 AM State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC) – LL.B Mania

Tweets from
@llbmania
Leave a Reply
LL.B …
Your email address will not be published. Required @…· 20h
fields are marked * Federalism will not
be diluted by
Comment * merely using term
'Central
Government'
instead of 'Union
Government'!
The High Court
rejected the
argument that the
use of the
expression ‘Central 
Government’ gives
Name * Email * impression that 
State governments
are subordinate to 
Union Government.

#llbmania

Website 


LL.B …
@…· 20h ⋯

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the President gives »
next time I comment. assent to three
Criminal Law
amendment bills!
The Bharatiya
Post Comment
Nyaya Sanhita, the
Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita
and the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam
will replace the
Indian Penal Code
(IPC), the Code of
Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) and Indian
Evidence Act.
#llbmania

Recent Posts

https://llbmania.com/case-analysis/state-of-tamil-nadu-v-nalini-1999-scc/ 11/14
12/27/23, 11:48 AM State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC) – LL.B Mania

The Interplay between

the Insolvency &
Bankruptcy Code, 2016,
and SARFAESI Act,
2002

First Information
Report (FIR) under
CrPC: A Comprehensive
Guide with Case Laws

Naz Foundation v.
Government of NCT of
Delhi (2009 Del HC)

State of Tamil Nadu v. 

Nalini (1999 SCC) 
Jacob Mathew v. State 
of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC

1

Archives

December 2023
⋯
November 2023
»
September 2023

August 2023

July 2023

June 2023

May 2023

April 2023

March 2023

November 2022

October 2022

September 2022

https://llbmania.com/case-analysis/state-of-tamil-nadu-v-nalini-1999-scc/ 12/14
12/27/23, 11:48 AM State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC) – LL.B Mania

August 2022

July 2022

June 2022

May 2022

April 2022

March 2022

February 2022

January 2022

December 2021

November 2021 

October 2021 

September 2021



August 2021

July 2021

June 2021
⋯
May 2021
»
April 2021

March 2021

February 2021

January 2021

December 2020

November 2020

June 2020

May 2020

https://llbmania.com/case-analysis/state-of-tamil-nadu-v-nalini-1999-scc/ 13/14
12/27/23, 11:48 AM State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC) – LL.B Mania

©2023 LL.B Mania | WordPress Theme by SuperbThemes




⋯
»

https://llbmania.com/case-analysis/state-of-tamil-nadu-v-nalini-1999-scc/ 14/14