Congress MP R Sudha Moves Madras High Court Against Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Convict's Enrolment As Advocate, Notice Issued

Congress MP R Sudha has approached the Madras High Court challenging the enrollment of AG Perarivalan, convict in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, as an Advocate. 

The vacation bench of Justice Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar has admitted the plea and ordered notice to the Union Home Department, Legal Affairs Department, Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Central Bureau of Investigation and AG Perarivalan.

The case has been adjourned to June 9. 

Sudha has approached the court seeking to declare Section 24A of the Advocates Act as unconstitutional so far as it permits persons convicted and sentenced with death penalty and imprisonment for life to enroll as Advocates after a period of 2 years from their remission. She also sought to declare the enrolment of AG Perarivalan as illegal and void. 

It may be noted that Perarivalan, who was released by the Supreme Court in 2022, enrolled as an Advocate on April 27 this year. There were mixed opinions about this, and Sudha had also written to the President of India, questioning Perarivalan's enrolment.

Another plea, questioning Perarivalan's enrolment had come up before the court last week. The bench had issued notice in that case and adjourned the plea by four weeks.

In her plea, Sudha submitted that there was no iota of doubt about Perarivalan's involvement in Rajiv Gandhi's assassination and he was released merely on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding his pending mercy petition. Sudha submitted that merely because Perarivalan was released from jail would not wipe off his guilt.

Sudha pointed out that when a person guilty of contempt is not permitted to act as an Advocate unless and until he is purged from Contempt, someone like Perarivalan, who was convicted for acts of terrorism should not have been permitted to be enrolled as an advocate.

Sudha also submitted that the tenure of the office bearers of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry had already expired and the election to the bar council was notified on January 30, 2026. She thus argued that the office-bearers had shown undue urgency to conduct an enrolment ceremony on April 27, which was completely bewildering and suspicious. 

She also submitted that allowing Perarivalan to enter the noble profession of law would be demoralising for youngsters and would be a rude shock to the families of those who were killed along with Rajiv Gandhi.

Sudha thus questioned the interpretation of the word “Release” under the Advocates Act and argued that the same should not include persons who are convicted and sentenced for death penalty and imprisonment for life.

It was argued that persons who are sentenced to death or life imprisonment are legally mandated to be confined in prison till their last breath. Thus, she argued that such persons could never fall under the purview of “release” to get the benefits of Section 24A of the Act. She thus argued that the Section was arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in that it does not make any intelligible differentia between persons convicted for definitive terms and persons convicted for death penalty or imprisonment for life. Thus, she called for declaring the Section as unconstitutional to that extend.

Case Title: R Sudha v Union of India and Others

Case No: WP 19498 of 2026