Centre files review petition against Rajiv Gandhi convicts’ release: What does this mean for Nalini Sriharan and others?

On 11 November, the Supreme Court, in a surprise move, ordered the premature release of the remaining convicts serving life imprisonment in connection with the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. After the court’s order, Nalini Sriharan, R P Ravichandran, Santhan, Murugan, Robert Payas and Jayakumar walked out of jail amid much anger from the Congress party.

Almost a week later, the matter has taken a turn with the Centre now seeking a review of the Supreme Court’s order for the premature release of the six convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

The central government said the order granting remission to the convicts, who had assassinated the former prime minister, was passed without affording it adequate opportunity for hearing despite it being a necessary party to the case. The government said the convicts did not formally implead the Centre as a party which resulted in its non-participation in the case.

“Thus absence of any assistance by the Union of India, due to procedural lapse of convicts/petitioners, while the present matter was being finally heard and decided has prevented this Court from appreciating the crucial and important evidence in the matter, which if presented, would have assisted this court to arrive at a just and correct judgment in the matter,” said the Centre, as per a PTI report.

What does this mean for Nalini Sriharan and the other convicts, who were let out of prison? What exactly does a review petition mean? Will this mean they will have to stand for trial again?

Quick Reads

View All

Is India likely to ban social media for teens, as Australia has?

Economic Survey 2026: Gig jobs surges, set to form 6.7% of India’s workforce by 2029–30

We sift through all the legalese and give you the answers.

What’s a review petition?

When the Supreme Court passes down a judgment, it becomes the law of the land — it’s final. However, a review petition is a petition in which it is prayed before the Court of law to review its order or judgment which it has already pronounced.

Under Article 137 of the Constitution of India and the rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court of India has the power to review its judgment pronounced by it.

As per Supreme Court rules, a review petition is to be filed within 30 days of the pronouncement of judgment or order and that petition should be circulated without oral arguments to the same bench that delivered the judgment.

Who can file a review petition?

As per the rules, it is not necessary that only parties to a case can seek a review of the judgment on it. As per the Civil Procedure Code and the Supreme Court Rules, any person aggrieved by the judgment can seek a review.

In the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, the Centre has sought a review petition, stating that the apex court should have heard the Union of India before passing an order to release the convicts. “Petitions/applications related to the case were filed in the court without making the Union of India a party,” the petition stated.

In its petition, the Centre further said, “In such a sensitive matter, the assistance of Union of India was of paramount importance as the matter has huge repercussions on the public order, peace, tranquillity and criminal justice system of the country.”

Will the court hear the entire case again?

No. A review petition is entertained only under specific, narrow grounds and only to correct a “patent error”.

As Justice Krishna Iyer in a 1975 ruling said that a review can be accepted “only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility”.

As per the rules, the court only accepts a review on three grounds:
• the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
• mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
• any sufficient reason that is analogous to the other two grounds.

In seeking a review of the Rajiv case judgment, the government has highlighted an alleged procedural lapse, saying the convicts seeking remission did not formally implead the Centre as a party which resulted in its non-participation in the case.

How often does the Court review its decision?

It is not often that the Supreme Court accepts a review and overturns an original decision in a review. However, it does in some cases.

In 2019, the Supreme Court in a 3-2 verdict agreed to review its 2018 verdict in the Sabarimala case.

The apex court, however, refused to review its December 2018 ruling seeking a probe into the Rafale deal.

The court has allowed the Centre’s petition seeking a review of a March 2018 judgment that had effectively diluted the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Atrocities Act.

What does this mean for Nalini Sriharan and the others?

As of now, nothing. While the Centre has filed a plea for a review petition, the Court hasn’t accepted it.

For the time being, she and the others are free.

With inputs from agencies

Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.