From Death Sentence To Legal Practice: Perarivalan’s Journey Through Justice

“On May 18, 2022, when I finally walked out after more than three decades of incarceration, my mind was blank. But I carried a dream — to help people like me, who have been unjustly denied justice. Now, I have crossed a major milestone by enrolling as an advocate.”

A.G. Perarivalan, once convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, speaks with a curious mix of detachment and quiet resolve about his new role. The detachment comes from the excruciating years he endured within an often insensitive and adversarial system; the resolve, from the resilience that sustained his long fight for freedom.

A.G. Perarivalan enrolled as an advocate in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry three days ago, stepping into the very system that consumed over three decades of his life.

“Even during the trial, I nurtured a dream of becoming an advocate. But the system did not allow me to pursue legal studies,” he says. “So when I walked out, the first thing on my mind was to enrol in a college and study law.” He went on to pursue his legal education at Dr B.R. Ambedkar Law College in Bengalu

“I have not been part of any organisation after my release. I focused mainly on my studies. But now, I am thinking of associating with a human rights organisation,” he adds. “My service will be to those who have been illegally detained, languishing in jail without legal assistance. That is my responsibility.”

That he chose to study law immediately after his release suggests a conscious attempt not just at personal rehabilitation, but at reclaiming agency within a system that once rendered him powerless.

“I have, throughout my life, maintained faith in the legal system. At the same time, from my own experience, I can say that the Indian criminal justice system has many flaws. It tends to favour those with money—those who can afford skilled and expensive lawyers. Those who cannot may be forced to remain in jail. Money is a big factor here.”

Perarivalan says he now wants to offer others what he himself was denied. “I know the life of a prisoner. So I want to help them in every possible way,” he adds.

Arrested on June 11, 1991, from Periyar Thidal in Chennai by the CBI in connection with the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, Perarivalan was accused of supplying a 9-volt battery for the explosive device to Sivarasan, the operative behind the killing.

“Initially, I was not aware of the magnitude of the case. I believed that since I had not committed any crime, I would get justice. That was a blind belief, I later realised,” he says.

His reflection captures a transition—from naive faith in the inevitability of justice to a more tempered, experience-driven understanding of how the system functions, especially in cases marked by political sensitivity and investigative pressure.

The CBI maintained that Perarivalan had confessed to procuring the batteries with the knowledge that they would be used to assemble the device that killed Rajiv Gandhi. Perarivalan and his family, however, consistently denied that he made any such confession.

It was largely on the basis of this alleged confession that he was sentenced to death a punishment that was later commuted to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court.

A crucial turn in Perarivalan’s case came years later, when a senior investigating officer cast doubt on the very foundation of the prosecution’s case—the confession. In an interview to the activists’ group People’s Movement Against Death Penalty, V. Thiagarajan, then a Superintendent of Police with the CBI, admitted that he had not recorded the confession verbatim. He later, in 2017, reiterated this in an affidavit before the Supreme Court, acknowledging that he had omitted a vital portion of the statement given by the 19-year-old Perarivalan.

According to Thiagarajan, Perarivalan had told him that he was unaware of the purpose for which the batteries were being procured. This exculpatory detail, however, was not included in the recorded confession.

The revelation significantly altered the moral and legal contours of the case, raising serious questions about the integrity of the investigation and the reliability of the evidence that led to a death sentence—underscoring how omissions within the system can have life-altering consequences.

“It was only after Thiagarajan’s disclosure that my innocence came to light in the public domain. It was that revelation that gave me the strength to continue my fight for justice,” says Perarivalan.

In 2018, the Tamil Nadu government , led by Edappadi K. Palaniswami, recommended to Governor Banwarilal Purohit that all seven life convicts in the assassination case of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi be released under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. This followed observations by the Supreme Court of India that the Governor was at liberty to decide on Perarivalan’s remission plea.

However, the recommendation remained pending with the Governor for over two years, before being forwarded to the President—an act that drew sharp legal scrutiny. Eventually, in 2022, the Supreme Court  invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to order Perarivalan’s release. The Court held that the prolonged delay in acting on his remission plea was unreasonable and clarified that the Governor could not refer the State Cabinet’s recommendation to the President.

The ruling effectively brought an end to 31 years of incarceration, marking a significant moment in the intersection of executive power, judicial oversight, and individual liberty.

“I have to thank several people, including the late V. R. Krishna Iyer, who stood by me,” Perarivalan recalls. He points to Justice Krishna Iyer’s landmark ruling in Maru Ram vs Union of India, which held that the Governor is bound by the advice of the State Cabinet under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. This precedent proved crucial in arguing that the Tamil Nadu government’s 2018 recommendation for his release was binding on the Governor.

“There are several others, including Ram Jethmalani and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who fought for me and helped secure my release,” he adds.

“Now, the onus is on me to help others. There are many who need legal assistance—people who cannot afford expensive lawyers. Justice must reach them as well,” Perarivalan says, outlining the path he now hopes to take.