Top Stories

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case: SC Notice To CBI On Convict’s Plea for Further Probe

LiveLaw News Network
14 Dec 2016 1:18 PM GMT
Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case: SC Notice To CBI On Convict’s Plea for Further Probe
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the CBI on a petition filed by Perarivalan, a convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, seeking further investigation into the conspiracy behind the incident.

The bench comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice L Nageshwara Rao sought a reply from the CBI as to why it did not conduct further investigation despite an order from the TADA court.

Perarivalan is one of the convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. He was convicted for conspiracy and is presently undergoing the 26th year of imprisonment.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Dhavan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, besides the SIT (Special Investigation Team) of the CBI, a one-man commission of Justice MC Jain was appointed to give a report to the government interalia on the aspect of larger conspiracy. After the debate in Parliament on the report, the government assured to further investigate into certain important aspects of the assassination case, which was left out by the CBI (SIT).

The CBI, after getting an order from the TADA court, had constituted a special investigation team to investigate into the offence, which was called as Multi-disciplinary Monitoring Authority (MDMA).

The petitioner alleged that even after 18 years, no tangible result has come out of the investigation.

The petitioner moved the TADA court for effectively monitoring the investigation by opening the sealed covers and asking the CBI to answer the lacunas pointed out by him on the basis of the Jain Commission’s report, based on which the CBI moved the court for further investigation.

However, the TADA court dismissed the application. Though, the petitioner moved the Madras High Court, the court even refused to number the petition, holding that it has no jurisdiction as offences under the TADA is involved.

This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.

Next Story
Share it