Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict Perarivalan approaches Bombay HC seeking details on Sanjay Dutt’s release

AG Perarivalan Arivu, a life convict who has spent 29 years in jail in connection with the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case has approached the Bombay High Court seeking details related to the early release of Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt, who was also convicted under the Arms Act.

The decision to approach the Bombay High Court comes after Perarivalan’s failed attempts to seek more details on the above via an RTI query.

Although Perarivalan (at the age of 19) was convicted under the grounds of having provided two 9-volt batteries which were used in the bomb that killed Rajiv Gandhi, it has been established later that he merely procured the batteries without knowing about the conspiracy or what the batteries would be used for. 

It is notable that, despite the President of India having rejected actor Dutt’s clemency petition and his conviction under a law that falls under Central government’s jurisdiction, the Maharashtra state government had used its legal powers, rights to grant permission for the actor’s early release. 

In March 2016, Perarivalan had sought details under the Right to Information Act (RTI), regarding the legal procedures that led to Dutt’s early release on compassionate grounds. However, it is stated that the response from the Yervada Jail Information Officer and higher authority- Pune district Information office was lax. Hence Perarivalan’s lawyers have approached the High Court requesting action against the erring officials and also seeking more details on Dutt’s release. 

When the Tamil Nadu government had earlier allowed Arivu out on parole, the state’s Advocate General had pointed out that the right and powers to grant parole solely remained with the state government. The Advocate General had also guided the state government on the procedures for the same. 

On the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti in 2019, the Central government had issued an order regarding the early release of prisoners. The government order had emphasized that, under Rule 161, the respective states could ensure the early release of prisoners as per their existing prison rules and regulations.

Even in a verdict delivered on September 6, 2018, the Supreme Court had clearly stated that it was within the powers of the state government, under Rule 161, to decide on the release of Perarivalan. 

“When Dutt and Arivu are punished under the same Arms Act, how did the Maharashtra government decide on releasing Dutt on their own, without discussing with the Central government. If we get the documents and procedures leading to Dutt’s release by the state government, we could get more clarity,” K Sivakumar, Arivu’s lawyer, told WION.

The Bombay High Court has agreed to take up this case and the hearing date is expected to be revealed in the following week.