Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Convict Perarivalan Enrolled as Lawyer: Mayiladuthurai MP R. Sudha Writes to President Droupadi Murmu for Immediate Cancellation

New Delhi/Chennai- In a strongly worded letter, Mayiladuthurai Congress MP and senior advocate R. Sudha has urged President Droupadi Murmu to intervene and cancel the enrolment of A.G. Perarivalan, a convict in the 1991 assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, as an advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTNP). She described April 27, the day of his enrolment, as a "Black Day" in the judicial history of India.

Perarivalan, 54, was one of the convicts sentenced to death by the Supreme Court in 1999 in the Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT vs. Nalini and Ors. case for his role in the May 21, 1991, suicide bombing at Sriperumbudur that killed Rajiv Gandhi and 14 others, including police personnel. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), with which he was associated, remains a banned terrorist organisation in India and several countries. His death sentence was later commuted, and he was released in May 2022 by a three-judge Supreme Court bench invoking Article 142 of the Constitution on grounds of inordinate delay by the Tamil Nadu Governor in deciding his mercy petition under Article 161.

After his release, Perarivalan pursued a law degree in a college in Karnataka, cleared the All India Bar Examination, and was formally enrolled as an advocate on April 27, at the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. He is expected to practise at the Madras High Court, reportedly focusing on prisoners' rights and anti-death penalty matters. The enrolment ceremony reportedly included an address by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari.

Allegations of a "tearing hurry" in clearing Perarivalan's application

In her detailed letter addressed to the President, Adv. R. Sudha, who has practised law for 26 years at the Madras High Court and previously served as Vice-President of the Madras High Court Advocates Association argued that the enrolment violates the spirit of the law and undermines the dignity of the legal profession.

She pointed out that Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, disqualifies a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude from enrolment as an advocate for two years after release. While the two-year period has elapsed since Perarivalan's 2022 release, Sudha contended that the provision must be read in its true letter and spirit, especially for grave offences like terrorism and the assassination of a former Prime Minister.

"An act of terrorism cannot be equated with usual crime, however grave it could be, for the purpose of taking a spot in the hallowed halls of the legal fraternity," she wrote. She added that the Supreme Court's order of release under Article 142 for delay in mercy petition does not wipe out the finality of guilt established by the court, nor does it grant a "blank cheque" for the convict to enter the legal profession without restrictions.

Sudha also raised procedural concerns. She questioned the validity of the enrolment conducted by the outgoing office-bearers of the Bar Council, noting that elections for new office-bearers had already been held and vote counting was in progress. She alleged a "tearing hurry" in clearing Perarivalan's application, which was reportedly kept on hold for over six months before being approved on April 27.

Demand for Judicial and Administrative Intervention

The MP has made several specific demands to the President:

1. Refer the matter of Perarivalan's enrolment to a larger bench of the Madras High Court, which is already examining a similar issue on enrolment of persons with serious cases.

2. Suspend his enrolment until the larger bench delivers its verdict and prohibit him from appearing before any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body.

3. Cancel the enrolment by interpreting Section 24A in its true spirit.

4. Order an inquiry, preferably by a retired High Court judge, into the circumstances of the hurried enrolment by lapsed office-bearers and the handling of his application.

5. Ascertain whether the Madras High Court Chief Justice was aware that Perarivalan was among those taking the oath during the enrolment address.

She also referenced observations by the Law Commission of India and judgments, including one from the Gujarat High Court (affirmed by the Supreme Court in Mahipal Singh Rana), which expressed distress over allowing persons convicted of serious offences involving moral turpitude to enrol as advocates after merely two years, questioning whether such a short cooling-off period truly reforms character for the "noble profession."

Sudha warned that granting Perarivalan access to court records and the right to represent clients would be "disastrous as well as demoralising" for young lawyers and a "rude shock" to the families of the victims of the 1991 assassination.

The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry has defended the enrolment. Enrolment committee chairman K. Balu stated that the law permits registration after the two-year period under Section 24A, and there is no provision for a permanent disqualification. He clarified that Perarivalan's application was scrutinised and processed as per statutory provisions.

The development has sparked widespread debate on the balance between legal rights of reformed convicts and the integrity of the legal profession, particularly in high-profile cases involving national leaders and terrorism.