Unhappy with TADA Court, SIC, Arivu plans to Move HC

Indian Express: Vellore: Thursday, 28 May 2015.

One of the persons sentenced to life over the assassination of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, A G Perarivalan (alias) Arivu, is planning to approach the Madras High Court after the “unsatisfactory” response by the State Information Commission (SIC) and the TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities) Court  to his petition under the RTI Act seeking information in his quest to prove his innocence.

“The SIC and TADA court’s reply to the application under RTI is not satisfactory.  I am planning to file a writ petition in this regard in the Madras HC, seeking its intervention to prove his innocence,” Advocate K Tholkappian told Express after meeting Arivu in the Vellore Central Prison for Men on Wednesday.

Arivu claims that it was the TADA court  that directed the Multi Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) of the CBI to probe possible foreign links in the assassination. Arivu has cited the court’s reply to his (Arivu’s) question seeking the basis on which TADA found it necessary to probe foreign links in the case. In response, the TADA Court  stated that “the materials submitted by the petitioner on action taken on the final report of Justice Jain Commission of Enquiry are sufficient to direct the CBI to proceed further investigation. I (Judge of the designate court) therefore grant permission under section 173 (8) Code of Criminal Procedure to the CBI to conduct further investigations in the Rajiv assassination case.”

During the video-conferencing with Arivu on April 16, the SIC stated that the MDMA has submitted 66 sealed covers to the TADA Court. Arivu and his advocate claim that learning the contents of the letters in the sealed envelopes including who and where the IED belt-bomb, used to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi was made, is crucial to proving Arivu’s innocence.

Tholkappian points to the fact that TADA Court contradicts itself when it says that the 66 sealed covers submitted by the MDMA cannot be opened without specific orders from an appropriate or a competent authority. “It was the TADA court that directed the MDMA probe. If TADA court is not the appropriate or competent authority to open the sealed cover, then who is the authority?” the advocate asked.

The advocate pointed out that the two-year-old legal battle has brought unsatisfactory responses to Arivu’s questions in his quest to prove his innocence.

“The replies given under RTI have not answered our questions. We will approach the HC with a writ petition once the Court’s vacation is over. We will plead to the Court that we need answers to the 12 questions put forth by Arivu,” he added.