State of Tamil Nadu vs Nalini - Case Analysis

Introduction of State of Tamil Nadu vs Nalini

State of Tamil Nadu vs Nalini which is also known as the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case. This case is a landmark decision in the legal history of India. The case revolves around the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1999. Recently in 2022 the Supreme Court ordered the premature release of all the convicts involved in the assassination of the Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

📚 Exclusive Free Judiciary Notes For Law Aspirants

Subjects	PDF Link
Download the Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita PDF Created by legal experts	Download Link
Grab the Free Law of Contract PDF used by Judiciary Aspirants	Download Link
Get your hands on the most trusted Free Law of Torts PDF	Download Link
Crack concepts with this Free Jurisprudence PDF crafted by top mentors	Download Link

Historical Context and Facts of State of Tamil Nadu vs Nalini

The case revolves around the assassination of the former Prime Minister of India, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. He was assassinated by a suicide bomber named Dhanu on 21st May, 1991 at the of campaign in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. The bombing killed 14 people including Rajiv Gandhi.

Key Accused

Nalini Sriharan, a Tamil woman from Sri Lanka was one of the main conspirators. She played a significant role in acquiring the explosives and transporting Dhanu to the site of the assassination.

Indo-Sri Lankan Accord

India became involved in the Sri Lankan conflict when it acted as a mediator between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil ethnic minority seeking autonomy. In 1987, the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord was signed by then Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lankan President Jayawardane along with LTTE leader Velluppilai Prabhakaran’s involvement. Following the accord, the Indian Peace Keeping Forces (IPKF) were deployed to Sri Lanka, causing hostility among Tamil militants due to the perceived aggression by forces of IPKF. This aggression resulted in the conspiracy to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi.

Arrest and Trial

Nalini along with 25 other conspirators was arrested in connection with the assassination. All were charged and tried under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). The Trial Court sentenced and convicted the death penalty to Nalini and three others namely, Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan. The remaining accused were sentenced to life imprisonment or lesser sentences by the Trial Court.

Appeal in the Madras High Court

An appeal was filed in the High Court of Madras challenging the decision of the Trial Court. However, the High Court of Madras upheld the decision of the Trial Court. Thus, the appeal was rejected by the Court.

Appeal in the Supreme Court

Aggrieved by this decision of the Madras High Court, Nalini approached the Supreme Court.

Issue addressed in State of Tamil Nadu vs Nalini

The main questions which was addressed in this case were-

• Whether the accused Nalini and others can be held liable under Section 34 r/w Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code?
• Whether the accused can be held liable under Section 3 and Section 4 of the TADA Act?

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 34 of the Code deals with the acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 

Section 120A of the Code provides a definition of Criminal Conspiracy. It states that When two or more per­sons agree to do or cause to be done-

1. an illegal act
2. an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agree­ment is designated a criminal conspiracy

Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 120B provides punishment for Criminal Conspiracy. It states that-

1. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards shall, where no express provision is made for the punishment of such a conspiracy be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
2. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months or with fine or with both.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 302 of the Code provides punishment of murder. It states that-

Whoever who commits murder shall be punished with-

• Death or
• Imprisonment for life and
• fine

Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987

Section 3 of the Act provides punishment for terrorist acts aimed at intimidating the government or terrorising people. This Section imposes stringent punishments such as death penalty and life imprisonment along with a fine.

Section 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987

Section 4 of the Act provides punishment for anyone involved in disruptive activities. Disruptive activities include actions that disrupt the sovereignty of India and its territorial integrity or support the secession or succession of any part of India. The maximum imprisonment given under this provision is imprisonment for life and the minimum punishment is five years of imprisonment.

Judgment and Impact of State of Tamil Nadu vs Nalini

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions in the State of Tamil Nadu vs Nalini confirming the death sentences of Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan. The Court lowered the sentence of Nalini to life imprisonment taking in account that she was young and was a mother of a child.

The Court in this case applied the principle of “constructive liability” and held that the accused were guilty of the assassination. The active involvement of the accused’s in planning, organising and providing support for the assassination made them liable for conspiracy and murder. The Court also noted that the accused shared a common intention to commit the offence. The Court confirmed that the death sentences were appropriate considering the seriousness of the offence and its impact on national security.

Recently in 2022, the Supreme Court ordered the release of Nalini, Santhan, Murgan along with other three accused.

Conclusion

State of Tamil Nadu vs Nalini, 1999, had a major impact on the judicial system of India. It was the country’s first case of terrorism which highlighted the need for stringent laws to deal with such incidents. The case also exposed the involvement of the LTTE in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. This case paved the way for the enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in 2002 with an aim to handle offences of terrorism.