CASE ANALYSIS – Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu (1999) SCC (Cri) 914 

Facts Of the Case

Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi  On 21 May 1991, Rajiv Gandhi, the former Prime Minister of India, was assassinated at an election rally in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, by a  womanish  self-murder bomber named Thenmozhi Rajaratnam, also known as Dhanu. The assassination was part of a well- planned terrorist conspiracy.  part of the LTTE  The assassination was orchestrated by the Liberation Barracuda of Tamil Eelam( LTTE), a militant Tamil rebel group from Sri Lanka, as  vengeance against India’s military involvement in the Sri Lankan civil war through the Indian Peace Keeping Force( IPKF).  Casualties  The blast killed Rajiv Gandhi, the  self-murder bomber, and 15 other people, including police  labor force and members of the public. Several others were seriously injured in the explosion.  Arrest of S.Nalini  Nalini, an Indian  public, was arrested as part of the  disquisition into the conspiracy. She was one of 26  indicted persons,  numerous of whom were linked to the LTTE.  Allegations Against Nalini  Nalini was  indicted of  Harboring and  aiding LTTE operatives, including th e  self-murder bomber.  furnishing logistical and material support to the conspirators.  Being in a close relationship with Murugan, a  elderly LTTE member, and helping him and others move and hide within Tamil Nadu.  sharing in planning meetings, and being  apprehensive of the intended assassination in advance.  Accompanying the group during surveillance( surveillance) of the rally  point.  Trial under TADA and IPC  Nalini and others were tried under multiple laws, including  Terrorist and Disruptive Conditioning( Prevention) Act( TADA), 1987  Indian Penal Code( IPC), 1860  Explosives Act, 1884, and  Arms Act, 1959  Conviction and Condemning  In January 1998, a Designated TADA Court in Chennai condemned Nalini and  doomed her to death, grounded on the  substantiation including  Her  concession under Section 15 of TADA  Witness  testaments  particular  substantiation showing her deep involvement in the conspiracy.  Appeal to the Supreme Court  Nalini filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India, challenging  The validity of her conviction  The admissibility and voluntariness of her  concession  The  felicitousness of the death penalty, given her background and circumstances.

   Issues of The Case 

 1. Whether the  concession made by Nalini under Section 15 of TADA was voluntary and  fairly  permissible as  substantiation? 

 2. Whether Nalini’s conviction under TADA, IPC, and other laws was justified based on the available evidence?

3.Whether Nalini had sufficient knowledge and intent to be held guilty of being part of the conspiracy to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi?

4.Whether the death sentence awarded to Nalini by the TADA Court was legally and morally sustainable?

5.Whether the trial under TADA provisions followed procedural fairness and conformed to constitutional protections

Judgment:

1. Conviction Upheld:

 The Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of S. Nalini under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court agreed with the findings of the Designated TADA Court that Nalini knowingly participated in the conspiracy to assassinate former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

2. Confession Held Admissible:

The confession made by Nalini under Section 15 of TADA was ruled as voluntary and legally admissible.

The Court held that the confession was properly recorded and there was no evidence of coercion, torture, or procedural irregularity.

3. Acknowledgment of Role in Conspiracy:

The Court recognized that Nalini was not present at the actual site of the assassination, but her actions—such as harboring the assassins, providing shelter, and assisting with logistics—were crucial to the execution of the conspiracy.

Her close association with Murugan (LTTE operative and her husband) was also considered important.

4. Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment:

The Supreme Court commuted Nalini’s death sentence to life imprisonment.

Reasons for commutation included:

She was a woman and mother of a young child.

She had no previous criminal record.

Her role, while serious, was not central to the actual assassination.

Her conduct in jail was reportedly good.

The Court applied the principle of individualized sentencing and ruled that life imprisonment was appropriate in Nalini’s case.

5. Impact on Other Accused:

The Court also dealt with the appeals of the other 25 accused in the same judgment. Some convictions and death sentences were upheld, while others were commuted or reversed depending on the evidence against each individual.

Reasoning

In its judgment affirming Nalini’s conviction, the Supreme Court of India provided a detailed and well-reasoned explanation for its decision. One of the key issues was whether Nalini’s confession, made under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), was voluntary and could be legally accepted as evidence. The Court held that her statement had been recorded by a police officer of the appropriate rank, in line with the procedures laid out under TADA. It found no credible proof that the confession was obtained through force, threats, or pressure. As such, the Court deemed the confession to be both voluntary and admissible. It also noted that, unlike in regular criminal cases where confessions to the police are generally inadmissible, TADA contains special provisions that allow such statements to be treated as direct evidence against the person who makes them.

The Court then examined Nalini’s role in the assassination conspiracy. Although she wasn’t present at the actual site of the bombing, the Court clarified that physical presence isn’t necessary to establish guilt in a conspiracy case. What matters is whether the accused had knowledge of the plan and took active steps to support it. Based on both her confession and other supporting evidence, the Court concluded that Nalini was fully aware of the assassination plot and played a significant role in enabling it. She had provided shelter to key LTTE operatives, including the suicide bomber, and had helped with logistics like transport and hiding. Her close association with Murugan, a senior LTTE member and her fiancé (later husband), further tied her to the group’s operations. All of this showed that she wasn’t just a passive bystander but an informed and willing participant in the conspiracy.

However, while confirming her conviction, the Court decided to reduce Nalini’s sentence from death to life imprisonment. Several mitigating factors influenced this decision. Nalini was a woman and the mother of a young child, and she had no prior criminal history. Though her involvement was serious, it wasn’t as direct or central as that of others who carried out the actual bombing. The Court also acknowledged her good behavior during her time in prison. Emphasizing the principle of individualized sentencing, the Court stressed that punishment must consider not only the gravity of the crime but also the personal circumstances of the accused. While the assassination of a former Prime Minister was undeniably a horrific and nationally significant crime, the Court held that justice should also reflect fairness and humanity. As a result, it concluded that life imprisonment, rather than the death penalty, was a more appropriate punishment in Nalini’s case.

References

1. Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 5 SCC 253
2. AIR 1999 SC 2640
3. 1999 SCC (Cri) 691
4. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 15
5. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120B, 302, 121
6. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Procedural provisions for trial and appeal
7. Explosives Act, 1884 and Arms Act, 1959
8. Supreme Court Judgment Portal: https://main.sci.gov.in
9. Indian Kanoon (Full Text of Judgment): https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1427613/

Written by Tejas Chaudhary; an intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.