Case Summary: State of Tamil Nadu vs Nalini And 25 others on 11 May 1999

• Court : The supreme court of India
• Bench : D . P . WADHWA , J .
• Date of judgement : 11.05.1999
• Relevant statutes/ key provision : Indian penal code ,Arms act 1959, Explosive act 1884 , terrorist and Disruptive activities , passport act 1967, foreigners act 1946

Brief facts

1. In order to prevent the intervention of the Indian government by the IKPF, the LTTE militant group decided to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi so that he couldn’t win the next elections in India and send back the forces to Sri Lanka.
2. The key members involved in this mission were Sivarasan, Subha, Nalini (A-1). Murugan (A-3), and Dhanu (DA). A few also supported them at many stages before and after their mission. The members were given training regarding the use of explosives. A Sri Lankan girl named Dhanu (DA), who was a member of the LTTE, was selected as the human bomb, and others were given several tasks to assist her during her act.
3. Nalini (A-1) was an ordinary Indian middle-class family girl who used to work for a private firm. She got involved with the LTTE and assassination conspiracy as she developed a fondness for Murugan (A-3) (an LTTE activist) and in fact, wanted to marry him. Thus, she kept helping the LTTE members in the mission by providing the required logistics.
4. The conspirators arrived in India using false identities and forged documents. Then they all spread to different locations to prepare for the assassination task.
5. Santhan (A-2), Murugan (A-3). Shankar (A-4), Vijayanandan (A-5), Ruban (A-6), Kanagasabapathy (A-7), Athirai (A-8). Robert Payas (A-9). Jayakumar (A-10). Shanthi (A-11). Vijayan (A-12). Selvaluxmi (A-13), Bhaskaran (A-14). Rangam (A-24), and Vicky (A-25), along with the deceased accused Sivarasan, Dhanu (DA), Subha, Nero, Gundu (Trichy) Santhan (A-2), Suresh Master, Dixon, Amman, Driver Anna, and Jamuna secretly entered into India from Sri Lanka and through other methods at different times during the specified period of criminal conspiracy.
6. They went to many election rallies to see the arrangements made for the politicians so as to get an idea of how much security would be around Rajiv Gandhi and in what manner they could approach him.
7. Sivarasan, along with his team, prepared the explosive device to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi.
8. Sivarasan (DA) brought Santhan (A-2). Shankar (A-4). Vijayanandan (A-5), and Ruban (A-6) along with the deceased accused Dhanu (DA), Subha, Nero, and Driver Anna to Kodikkarai and arranged accommodation fo other accused at various locations in Tamil Nadu to helped in executing the object of the criminal conspiracy.
9. The conspirators remained in touch throughout their preparations with the LTTE leaders present in Sri Lanka through wireless communication to receive instructions and updates. The plan was finalised to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi at the Sriperumbudur campaign rally.
10. Arivu (A-18) visited Jaffna and other places in Sri Lanka along with Irumborai (A-19) clandestinely in June 1990 and on 4.5.1991 purchased a Kawasaki motorcycle at Madras so that movement could be done throughout swiftly of himself and one or the other of the co-conspirators arranged money for printing and publication of the compilation described as “The Satanic Force and sent a copy of the same to Prabhakaran (absconding) through Sivarasan (DA). Another group through Murugan (A-3) purchased a battery for making the wireless apparatus work and the other two battery cells for detonating the belt bomb which would be used by Dhanu (DA) for the murder of Rajiv Gandhi,
11. Arivu (A-18) gave film roll to Haribabu (DA) for taking photographs of events, who also purchased a sandalwood garland from Poompuhar Handicrafts, Mount Road Madras, which was utilised by Dhanu (DA) for garlanding Rajiv Gandhi and to deceive and gain access under the VVIP portion under the guise of garlanding
12. 12. On 21st May 1991, Rajiv Gandhi arrived at Sriperumbudur to address an election rally, and as planned, Dhanu (DA), Nalini (A-1), Haribabu (DA), Sivarasan, Subha, and Murugan (A-3) held their positions.
13. The ground where Rajiv Gandhi would address the rally was divided into two halves, and on one side, a special area was made where some people were allowed to meet Rajiv Gandhi closely. Dhanu (DA), the human bomb. took advantage of the crowd and mingled with the participants who were standing in the special area to meet Rajiv Gandhi. Dhanu (DA) dressed herself in such a clothing that she could conceal a belt bomb and its detonator attached thereto under her clothing for activating the same when with Rajiv Gandhi reach near her.
14. After a few minutes, Rajiv Gandhi approached the rally ground and started meeting the people present there.When he approached Dhanu (DA), she first put a garland on him, and then, under the pretext of touching Rajiv Gandhi feet, she bent and detonated the bomb strapped to her body.
15. Immediately, the bomb blasted, resulting in the death of Rajiv Gandhi, along with 15 other people standing nearby. In this blast, Dhanu (DA) and Haribabu (DA) (a photographer involved in clicking the pictures of the incident) also died on the spot, Several others were injured there.16. After the blast, Nalini (A-1) ran away from the place of the incident with the deceased accused Sivarasan and Subha, and reached at the residence of Jayakumar (A-10) and Shanthi (A-11), and took refuge in Jayakumar’s (A-10) residence.
16. Soon after the blast, emergency services rushed to the scene of the incident to provide aid, and the local police and agencies started their investigation into the matter. The case was taken over by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) and SIT (Special Investigation Team). looking into the seriousness of the incident and its national significance.
17. During the investigation, several pieces of evidence were gathered, including forensic reports, photographs from the camera of Haribabu (DA) that survived the blast, communication records, and witness testimonies. On the basis of this evidence, several people were arrested, including Nalini (A-1). Murugan (A-3), and others. Sivarasan and Subha committed suicide when cornered by the police.
18. The CBI filed charges against 26 individuals under various laws, including the Indian Penal Code, TADA, Wireless Communication Act, Explosive Substances Act, and others.

Issues raised

1. Whether the accused, Nalini (A-1), is liable for assassination even though she did not commit the act?
2. Whether the accused, Nalini (A-1) and others, be held liable under the provisions of the TADA Act?
3. Whether the confession made by one accused is admissible as evidence against another co-accused?
4. Was the death penalty provided to the accused justified for the act?

Arguments of the parties

Arguments of the prosecution :

1. The prosecution argued that there was no doubt Nalini (A-1) was not a member of the LTTE group at the beginning of the conspiracy, but she still helped the existing members of the group by providing them with logistics and a place to stay. It was only because of Nalini (A-1) that the other conspirators were able to gather information about the places. Moreover, Nalini (A-1) was also present at the place of the assassination to support Dhanu (DA). This shows her active involvement in the whole conspiracy, and thus, as per Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, being a part of the conspiracy to commit a crime makes her equally liable for the crime as other accused persons.
2. It was highlighted that the assassination was purely an act of terrorism. The LTTE, through this assassination, had not only killed a reputed national leader of the country, but this act has also instilled fear in the minds of people, disrupted the public order, and delayed the elections of the country. This clearly shows that their intent behind the assassination was to overthrow the government as established by law, and all this was done with the aid of explosive substances. Combining all these incidents clearly shows that the accused persons are liable to be charged under the relevant provisions of the TADA Act.
3. Also, because Nalini (A-1) had knowingly facilitated the commission of this assassination, which is a disruptive activity, it was contended that she should also be punished under the provisions of the TADA Act.. As per Section 15 of the TADA Act, a confession made by a person before a police officer, not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police is admissible as evidence for that person and can also be used against any co-accused who is charged and tried in the same case. Upon investigation, the CBI recorded various confessions, and many of them were corroborated with each other, such as the confession of Murugan (A-3), which stands corroborated with the confession of his co-accused Nalini (A-1), Santhan (A-2). Arivu, Bhagyanathan, and Padma. So, all the essentials of the required provision are fulfilled, and thus a confession by the accused can be used against the co-accused as well.

4. The prosecution demanded the death penalty for all the accused involved in the assassination, as their act was very heinous and extraordinarily disruptive to the whole nation. They all have a common intention to commit a crime, and thus all should be made equally liable. This case also falls under the ambit of the rarest of rare cases, as the object of the conspiracy was not fulfilled with the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and the killing of several others, but it continued even after this incident. The LTTE planned to target various places and persons across the country as well

Arguments of the defence

1. The defence put forth the argument that Nalini (A-1) was not fully aware of the final plan and its deadly consequences. She was only doing the peripheral activities, and that too at the request of Murugan (A-3) because she liked him. Thus, Nalini (A-1) lacked the mens rea, which is requisite to hold anyone guilty of a crime. Moreover, being present at the scene of the incident does not equate to her direct involvement in the assassination.Also, it was argued that some people who joined the conspiracy after the motive of the conspiracy was achieved were all tried together, which resulted in great prejudice in the investigation.
2. The defence challenged the applicability of the provisions of the TADA Act, arguing that the evidence produced by the prosecution does not show if any offence under Section 3 or Section 4 of the TADA has been made. Neither the killing of Rajiv Gandhi could be considered a terrorist act under Section 3 of the TADA Act, nor is there any other disruptive activity as per Section 4 of the same Act, It was claimed that the incident was politically motivated, and not to terrorize the public or create instability in the country3. The defence further pleaded that because Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act are not applicable, thus all the confessions considered under Section 15 of the TADA Act should also not be considered valid. Moreover, the confession of Nalini (A-1) could not be relied on because she also later reversed her remarks, stating that it was made under duress. The defence also cited certain judicial precedents in which the courts have ruled against the admissibility of such confessions.
3. It was argued that the prosecution wrongly stated that the conspiracy was from a period of 1987 to 1992 because, in actual fact, no such signs were shown even before the day of the assassination, and thus, this case does not fall under the ambit of the rarest of the rare cases. It was pleaded that mitigating circumstances should be taken into consideration, and moreover, Nalini (A-1) and others have shown a potential for rehabilitation throughout the case, so a death sentence would be excessive. Also, there was no motive for the accused and other co-accused to overawe the Government or to create terror, as alleged by the prosecution, Section 3 of the TADA Act requires that the criminal act be done with the requisite intention or motive, and unfortunately, the prosecution fails to prove it. Thus, there is a lack of intention as to how the provisions of TADA are to be applied.

Judgment

This case concerned the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on 21 May 1991 by an LTTE suicide bomber at Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. Nalini and 25 others were prosecuted under the IPC, TADA, Arms Act, and Explosives Act. The designated TADA court sentenced all 26 accused to death.

On appeal, the Supreme Court (May 11, 1999) re-examined the evidence and legal standards. The Court held that the assassination was the result of a deep and calculated conspiracy by the LTTE, in which certain accused had played active roles. However, it stressed that criminal liability must be individual—mere association with LTTE or peripheral knowledge of the conspiracy could not attract capital punishment.

The Court upheld the death sentences of four accused, including Nalini, citing their active and conscious participation in the conspiracy and execution. The death penalty of others was reduced to life imprisonment, while some were acquitted due to lack of sufficient evidence.

This judgment is significant because it clarified the scope of conspiracy under criminal law, limited the excessive use of TADA provisions, and reiterated that the death penalty must be imposed only in the “rarest of rare cases” with proven direct involvement

Conclusion

The assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was planned and executed as part of a large-scale conspiracy by the LTTE, with active involvement of Nalini and certain others. The Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999) recognized the enormity of the crime and its disruptive impact on the nation but emphasized that criminal liability must be individualized.

Those who played a direct, conscious, and significant role in the conspiracy and execution, including Nalini and three others, were awarded the death penalty, treating the case as one of the “rarest of rare”.

For several others, whose participation was peripheral or inadequately proved, the Court commuted punishment to life imprisonment or acquitted them, thereby rejecting the idea of collective guilt merely by association with LTTE.

The judgment also limited the arbitrary extension of TADA provisions, while reaffirming that confessions under TADA require caution.

Thus, the verdict balanced the demands of justice, national security, and constitutional safeguards. It remains a landmark precedent on criminal conspiracy, admissibility of confessions, and the circumscribed application of the death penalty in India.