As the nation’s first case involving terrorism, nalini vs state of tamil nadu represents a turning point in Indian judicial history. In Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, on May 21, 1991, Rajiv Gandhi, the former prime minister of India, was shot and killed during a public gathering. After hearing the case, the Special Court for the Trial of the rajiv gandhi assassination case rendered a verdict on January 28, 1998. In the case, Nalini was a defendant, and her sentence was lowered to life in prison.
nalini vs state of tamil nadu Case Facts
- The admissibility of openly confessional statements, the scope of effect of the TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, the extent of the President of India’s pardoning authority, and the application of the death penalty in India were among the legal issues that were covered in the nalini vs state of tamil nadu case.
- One of the main issues in the case was whether Nalini’s confessional declaration was admissible. In a confessional statement, Nalini had admitted to the court that she had participated in the plot to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi.
- Subsequently, she clarified that she had made it under duress. The Supreme Court ruled that the confessional statement was inadmissible because it was made under duress, despite the trial court having allowed it as evidence.
- The applicability of TADA was another significant issue. The tada act criteria were applied to the case by the trial court, allowing for tougher evidentiary procedures and harsher penalties.
- The Supreme Court held, however, that because the offense happened before the statute’s enactment, the tada act could not be applied.
- Additionally, the lawsuit questioned the President of India’s pardoning power. Nalini had asked the president for a pardon, but it had been turned down.
- However, the Supreme Court ruled that the President’s decision was not final and that further consideration of the matter and, if necessary, relief might be granted by the courts.
- Concerns concerning India’s application of the death penalty have been brought up by this case. The trial court had given Nalini a death sentence, but the Supreme Court changed it to life in prison.
- The death penalty should only be applied in the most severe cases, where life in prison would not be an adequate alternative punishment, according to a Supreme Court decision.
nalini vs state of tamil nadu Issues
- Is Nalini (A-1) the accused still accountable for the murder even though she did not carry out the crime?
- Will the terms of the TADA Act impose liability on the accused, Nalini (A-1) and others?
- Is a confession from one accused person admissible as proof against a co-accused person?
- Was the accused person’s death sentence appropriate in light of the crime?
Contentions by the Parties
The following were Nalini’s principal points of contention:
- Her right to life and other fundamental rights were violated by the delay in making a decision regarding her compassionate plea.
- Since her offense did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category, the death penalty was not justified.
- The accused’s allegedly coerced confessional statements were improperly relied upon by the trial court.
Conversely, the State of Tamil Nadu contended that:
- Nalini’s constitutional rights were not violated by the unreasonable delay in ruling on the mercy plea.
- The crime Nalini did was so horrible that it called for the death penalty to be applied.
- Because the accused made his confessions willingly and free from coercion, they were admissible.
nalini vs state of tamil nadu Judgment
- The accused individuals’ appeal against their conviction and sentence was considered by the Indian Supreme Court. The court upheld the death sentences for Murugan, Santhan, and Perarivalan as well as the convictions of all the defendants. However, Nalini’s death sentence was reduced to life in prison by the court.
- Regarding the first issue, the court decided that even though the accused did not carry out the assassination, they were still responsible for it. The concept of “constructive liability,” which holds that someone can be found guilty of a crime if they aid or abet its commission, was used by the court.
- According to the court, the accused actively participated in the assassination’s preparation and execution and helped the real criminal out with supplies and other means. They were therefore accused of murder and conspiracy.
- The accused parties had a single goal to perpetrate the offense in question number two, the court found. The court stated that the defendants met several times and talked about their plot to kill Rajiv Gandhi.
- They had also provided financial and logistical assistance for the murders. They had so come to share a willingness to carry out the crime.
- Regarding the third query, the court found that the death sentences of the defendants were justifiable. The court declared that the assassination of the former prime minister was a horrifying deed that endangered the stability and security of the country.
- The court stated that the accused also declined to express regret for their actions and declined to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, the death sentence was a fitting retribution for the crime.
The need for reforms in our nation’s legal and non-legal sectors is highlighted by this case. This emphasized the necessity of upholding due process of law while striking a balance between the demands of justice and the defense of human rights. Because this case demonstrates so clearly how a minor decision may cost the lives of so many innocent people, there is a need to improve the country’s security and defense as well as diplomatic relations.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
