Following the Supreme Court verdict, the Jayalalitha government decided to release all convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, including Nalini, Perarivalan, Santhan, Murugan, Robert Pious, Jayakumar and Ravichandran
The Tamil Nadu Government on Wednesday decided to release all the seven convicts serving life term in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, a day after the Supreme Court commuted the death penalty of three convicts.
An emergent meeting of the state cabinet chaired by Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa took a decision to set at liberty all the seven convicts, including Nalini and Perarivalan.
Others who will be released include Santhan, Murugan, Robert Pious, Jayakumar and Ravichandran.
Making an announcement in the State Assembly, Jayalalithaa said the State would send the Cabinet decision to the Centre seeking its nod as required under Section CrPC section 435 as the case was filed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the case.
“If there is no reply within three days from the Centre, the State Government will release all the seven under CrPC section 432 in accordance with the powers vested with the State Government,” she said.
With this decision, the seven serving life term could be free from jail in three days.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday commuted the death sentence of three convicts in the case to life imprisonment on the ground of delay in deciding their mercy plea by the Centre.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam had rejected the Centre’s submission that there was no unreasonable delay in deciding their mercy plea and the condemned prisoners did not go through agonising experience as they were enjoying life behind the bars.
The Bench, also comprising justices Ranjan Gogoi and SK Singh, said it was unable to accept the Centre’s view and commuted the death sentence of Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan to life imprisonment to remission by the Government.
Rajiv Gandhi was killed in May 1991. His assassins were convicted by a TADA court in January 1998 and were awarded death sentence, which was confirmed by the apex court on 11 May 1999.
MCA also said private entities cannot use words such as ‘Bank,’ ‘Stock Exchange’ and ‘Exchange’ without obtaining NOC from sectoral regulators
The Indian government said companies and limited liability partnership ILLP) firms floated by private entities should not use the word ‘National’ in their names.
The latest move from the ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) comes in the backdrop of instances of private entities using the word ‘National’ in their names, including the case of National Spot Exchange Ltd (NSEL), which is embroiled in a major payment crisis.
The ministry also said words such as ‘Bank,’ ‘Stock Exchange’ and ‘Exchange’ should be used only after getting no-objection certificates (NOC) from the sectoral regulators.
“It is being intimated that no company should be allowed to be registered with the word ‘National’ as part of its title unless it is a government company and the Central/ state government(s) has a stake in it,” the ministry said.
As pointed out by Moneylife, private promoters have been using ‘National’ and other generic words for their company names. The Financial Technologies group has always managed to get generic words as company names, with Registrars violating their own guidelines. The name National Spot Exchange clearly creates the impression that it is a public sector entity, like the National Stock Exchange (NSE) was, when it was started, which is no longer true today. The FT group also has the Indian Energy Exchange—another private sector bourse that has been allowed the use of a name that clearly violates the names and emblems statute.
All Registrars of Companies (RoCs) have been asked to follow the directive strictly while registering companies.
A circular in this regard has been issued to all stakeholders and regional directors, among others.
Entities wanting to have the word ‘Bank’ in their names must obtain a no-objection certificate from the Reserve Bank of India.
“By the same analogy, the word ‘Stock Exchange’ or ‘Exchange’ should be allowed in name of a company only where no-objection certificate’ from SEBI in this regard is produced by the promoters,” the circular said.
RoCs come under the ministry, which implements the Companies Act.
In the draft rules for the new Companies Act, the government had proposed that phonetic or spelling variations of existing names or similar-sounding words would not be allowed for new companies.
The new rules bar the use of abbreviations and country and state names, except for some government units. Terms such as ‘British India’ and names of ‘enemy’ countries will not be allowed.
The Government had suggested an indicative list of dos and don’ts to be followed while incorporating a company in the country to ensure that their names reflect the nature of their businesses to the extent possible.
Besides, the ministry had drawn up a list of words and combinations such as Board, Commission, Authority and Rashtrapati that can’t be used without prior approval of the Central Government.
Other words on the list include Undertaking, National, Union, Central, Federal, Republic, President, Small Scale Industries, Khadi and Village Industries Corporation and Development Authority.
You may also want to read…
To avoid one person getting unfettered powers of management, SEBI's feels separation of the post of chairman, MD or CEO should be implemented by companies as a good governance practice
Market watchdog Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) wants listed companies to voluntarily consider separating the posts of chairman, managing director and chief executive (CEO) as a good governance practice as it feels making it mandatory may not be feasible yet.
SEBI has expressed its views in the new corporate governance code, which listed companies need to implement by 1st October. The code was cleared by the regulator's board and is being finalised for necessary notifications.
There have been suggestions that companies should have different persons for the roles of chairman and managing director (or chief executive officer) to avoid one person getting unfettered powers of management.
The requirement to segregate the roles is common in developed countries such as the US, the UK and France.
SEBI had sought feedback in its consultation paper on new corporate governance norms on the need to separate the positions of chairman and MD.
The new Companies Act provides for such a separation unless the articles of a company provide otherwise or a company does not have multiple businesses.
While a majority of the comments received in response to the consultative paper favoured mandatory separation of the posts, SEBI's Primary Market Advisory Committee (PMAC) recommended that separate posts not be mandated.
Agreeing with the PMAC recommendation, the regulator proposed that separate posts for the chairman and MD/CEO may not be mandated considering the extant provisions that mandate a higher number of independent directors if there is an executive chairman.
"However, it is proposed that the separation of the post of chairman and MD or CEO may be implemented by companies as a good governance practice," SEBI concluded.
On a PMAC recommendation to have a majority of independent directors in the absence of a regular non-executive chairman, SEBI said this proposal appeared to be "too onerous."
"It is proposed to address the concern of PMAC by incorporating the provision that boards of companies which do not have a regular non-executive chairman shall have at least half of the board as independent," the regulator said.
In most public sector enterprises, as also many large private sector companies, the posts of chairman and managing director are held by the same person.
The PMAC had observed that the question of mandatory separation of chairman and CEO posts was not settled globally yet and a good number of companies already had different individuals for these positions.