Case Summary: State of Tamil Nadu V. Nalini and 25 others on 11 May,1999

• Court: Supreme court of India 
• Bench: D.P.WADHWA, J.
• Date of judgement: May 11,1999.
• Relevant provisions or statutes: Section 120A  and 120B of Indian Penal code.

Brief facts:

Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a suicide bomber, Thenmozhi Rajaratnam known to be Dhanu, a member of the banned Sri Lankan Tamil militant group LTTE.The attack took place at an election rally. Dhanu detonated an RDX explosives belt while greeting Gandhi, also killing herself and at least 14 other people.The bombing was masterminded and executed by several LTTE operatives, including Sivarasan known to one eyed Jack and facilitated by Indian collaborators such as Nalini.The assassination was meticulously planned, the conspirators entered the rally amid poor security, and the incident was captured on film by a photographer who also died in the blast but whose camera was recovered.

Issues:

1. Whether Nalini and others could be convicted for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) and Section 302 (murder) of the IPC, even though they did not personally commit the killing.
2. Whether the actions of Nalini and the co-accused fell under the definition of “terrorist acts” and “disruptive activities” as described in the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA)

Petitioner arguments:

• Criminal Conspiracy and Common Intention: The petitioner argued that Nalini and the co-accused were part of a criminal conspiracy to assassinate former PM Rajiv Gandhi. They shared a common intention as per Section 34 of IPC, and therefore all involved were liable for the assassination.
• Terrorist and Disruptive Activities: The petitioner contended that the killing of Rajiv Gandhi was a terrorist act under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). Nalini’s role in supporting the suicide bomber amounted to disruptive activity threatening the sovereignty and integrity of India, punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of TADA.
• Admissibility of Confession: The prosecution held that the confession made by Nalini and others was voluntary and admissible as evidence against them.
• Severity of Crime and Death Penalty: Emphasizing the seriousness of assassinating a former Prime Minister, the petitioner maintained that the death penalty was justified for Nalini and other convicted accused.
• Rejection of Claims of Coercion: The State rejected Nalini’s contentions that her confession was made under duress or that she was coerced into participating.
• Impact on National Security: The petitioner highlighted the act as one that created terror in society and threatened the country’s sovereignty, warranting stringent punishment.

Respondent arguments:

• Denial of Knowledge of Assassination Plot: Nalini argued that she was unaware of the conspiracy to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi until very close to the date of the incident, and that she did not actively participate in the plotting or execution of the assassination.
• Coercion and Influence: It was contended that Nalini was drawn into the conspiracy largely due to emotional attachment to her partner, an LTTE activist, and was influenced by others around her. The respondent claimed that she was used as a cover and was not a dominant or deciding participant in the criminal acts.
• Lack of Direct Role: Nalini’s defense stated she did not directly engage in the killing and only became associated with the group at the last moment, serving more as support and cover rather than a key conspirator.
• Claims of Being a Victim of Circumstances: She presented herself as a woman trapped in the fold of a larger conspiracy beyond her control and intelligence.
• Questioning Evidence: The defense challenged the use of certain confessions and evidence, arguing that some confessions were made under coercion or were inadmissible.
• Humanitarian and Personal Circumstances: Nalini’s lawyers argued for consideration based on her young age, motherhood, and the fact she was pregnant at the time of her arrest, asking for leniency.

Judgement:

26 people were arrested and tried under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA). Nalini and three others were sentenced to death, with the rest receiving varying jail terms.The Supreme Court eventually commuted Nalini’s sentence to life imprisonment and clarified key principles of intent and conspiracy, decades later, in 2022, main convicts were released.