A petition has been filed before the Madras High Court challenging the enrolment of Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict AG Perarivalan as an advocate [R Sudha Vs Union of India].
The petition filed by Congress MP and advocate R Sudha has sought a declaration that Perarivalan’s enrolment on the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is illegal and void.
The plea has also challenged Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, to the extent it permits persons convicted and sentenced to death or life imprisonment to be enrolled as advocates after two years from their release.
Sudha has arrayed the Union government, Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Perarivalan as respondents.
The petition states that Sudha was shocked to learn from press and social media reports that Perarivalan was enrolled as an advocate by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on April 27.
Perarivalan was convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. His death sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1999. The sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment in 2014.
In May 2022, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to release him from prison after taking into account his prolonged incarceration, conduct in jail and during parole, medical condition, educational qualifications acquired during imprisonment and the delay in deciding the State Cabinet’s recommendation for remission.
He recently enrolled as a lawyer with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
The petition before the High Court has contended that Perarivalan’s release did not wipe out his conviction.
“Once he was found guilty by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which also rejected the connected review pleas, a finality of guilt is attained,” the plea states.
As per the petition, Section 24A cannot be interpreted to permit the enrolment of persons who were sentenced to death or life imprisonment.
Life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, the plea says. A premature release or remission cannot bring such a person within the meaning of “release” under Section 24A, it has been argued.
The plea has also questioned Perarivalan’s educational qualifications for enrolment as an advocate.
The plea claims that Perarivalan completed his undergraduate and postgraduate degrees through the open university system while in prison, and later completed his Higher Secondary course.
Thus, he does not satisfy the 10+2+3 pattern required for legal education and enrolment, the petition states.
The petition has further alleged procedural irregularities in his enrolment. It says the Bar Council’s tenure had expired and that a high-powered committee appointed by the Supreme Court was overseeing Bar Council elections.
Despite this, an enrolment function was held on April 27, the plea says.
The petitioner has also alleged that Perarivalan’s name did not figure in the list of candidates uploaded on the Bar Council website for the April 27 enrolment.
The plea has sought an interim suspension of Perarivalan’s enrolment. It has also sought an interim direction to the CBI to investigate the manner in which he was enrolled.