Will High Court allow Nalini to argue in person?

Whether the Madras High Court will allow Ms Nalini Murugan, who was convicted in the former Prime minister Rajiv Gandhi assassination case in person will be known on February 10.

When her premature release case came up before a division bench comprising Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice Paul Vasantha Kumar on Friday, the judges cautioned Janata Party President Dr Subramanian Swamy against “arguing” in public on the issue of premature release of Nalini, convicted for life in the Case, saying it would be contempt of court as the matter was sub-judice.

He ( Dr. Swamy) is arguing the case outside. It is already decided in newspapers. It is clearly contempt of court,” the bench told Mr. Swamy’s counsel taking exception to the Mr Swamy's remarks to reporters here on Thursday.

The bench made the observation when Dr. Swamy’s petition against a single judge’s order directing Tamil Nadu Government to constitute a fresh Prison Advisory Board to reconsider Nalini’s plea for premature release came up for hearing.

Senior advocate G. Rajagopalan, Dr. Swamy’s counsel, assured the bench that it would not happen in future and that he would convey the court’s views to his client.

"Already Nalini has engaged lawyers to appear in the court to advocate on her side and seeking permission to appear in person apart from this is against the law", Mr Rajagopal argued.

At a press conference here on Thursday, Dr. Swamy had said Nalini should not be allowed to argue in person on his petition as sought by her as she was a convict.

The State government has formed the board, headed by Vellore District Collector, which last week heard the views of Nalini and two other convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case, who are also seeking premature release.

State Advocate General P. S. Raman told the court, that the advisory board’s report had not yet been received by the government which he said has decided not to take any unilateral decision and would seek the Centre’s view.

Nalini’s counsel Radhakrishnan said that she had sent a telegram requesting the court to permit her to appear in person to argue the case.

The bench adjourned the petition for further hearing to Febraury 10.

- Asian Tribune -