The Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed the hanging of the three convicts involved in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

HT reports, Senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani argued on Monday that their mercy petition was rejected by the President after 11 years and four months. "Earlier if delay was beyond two years death would be commuted to life. This rule was changed," Jethmalani said.

The petition was filed by MDMK general secretary Vaiko and Advocate N Chandrasekaran on behalf of the condemned prisoners - Murugan, Perarivalan and Santhan. The petition was heard by Justice Paul Vasanthakumar. Earlier on August 11, President Pratibha Patil had rejected the mercy petitions of the petitioners and the death sentence was confirmed.

Meanwhile the Tamil Nadu state legislative assembly on Tuesday unanimously adopted a resolution for commuting the death sentence of the three convicts. The resolution was moved by Chief Minister Jayalalithaa in this regard

Bar & Bench spoke to various people from the legal fraternity on the issue. This is what they had to say.

Speaking to Bar & Bench Ananth Padmanabhan, Madras High Court Lawyer said: “Once a person has been convicted and sentence has been confirmed, the Courts’ role is only to see that the procedure has been followed correctly in allowing or dismissing the mercy petition. Courts do not have much scope for interference, apart from very limited  parameters which has been stated in some of  the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court like Kehar Singh, decision making process can only be looked into and not the decision. There was a clear decision to commute the sentence of one person by the then Tamil Nadu Government, while three other peoples’ sentence was not commuted. I find it extremely incorrect on the part of the Court to intervene at this stage. Courts should have interfered only when mercy is wrongly granted. In these cases court should take strict view. Delay in execution cannot be a factor to commute the death sentence.”

Speaking on the resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu state legislative assembly he said: “The resolution by the assembly was without jurisdiction. Under the Constitution the legislative assembly has no role to play and I would in fact say there is a clear bar for the legislature assembly for making any statement about granting of pardon or commuting sentence because the matter is already pending before the High Court and secondly the guilt of the persons has already been decided by Supreme Court.”

Dr. M.C. Valson Constitutional Law Professor at NUALS, Cochin said: “Prima facie the Court should not have entertained this petition but delay in execution of death sentence can be a factor to commute the sentence; there are specific decisions by the Supreme Court on this point. I feel system of Capital Punishment should be maintained. People have challenged the constitutionality of the same but it was upheld by the Supreme Court. It is applied only after proper checks and balances in rarest of rare cases only. Trial Court, High Court and Supreme Court have given their decisions in this instant case and if the present Court takes a contrary view it will be equal to ruling out the system of Capital Punishment.”

P. George Giri, Advocate-on-Record in Supreme Court said: “The traditional visual symbol of "Justice" is a blindfolded woman holding scales and a sword. The scales are for weighing right and wrong; the sword is to punish the guilty; the blindfold is to show that she is impartial (i.e. that she does not treat friends differently from strangers, or high-ranking people better than humble ones, because she does not "see" them). But she is not deaf, because she listens to all the evidence put before her. Hence, the stay granted by the Madras High Court is absolutely right at this stage. Because, keeping a person for eleven long years on the threshold of death is nothing but cruelty. Justice is not only to be done, but it should also be appeared to have been done. The Madras High Court is on the right path.”

Diptoshree Basu, Associate at a leading law firm in Delhi said: “I do not believe in capital punishment being retained as a punitive measure in any civilized country. Especially in the case of assassins of Rajiv Gandhi, given the prolonged delay in execution, the court must at the onset explain the reasons for the same, before further deciding on the fate of these individuals.”

Law Minister Salman Khurshid said "The state government resolution is not binding on anyone. The state government passes a resolution... I am sure that at the level at which it must be taken seriously and considered it will be taken.", reports DNA.

Days to follow is sure to lead to interesting debates on Constitutional Law; if a Single Judge of the Madras High Court can sit over as a  Super Appellate forum against the decision of the Apex Court and the President.