We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
https://www.verdictum.in/news/project-39a-national-law-university-1452518
https://swarajyamag.com/news-headlines/nlu-delhi-cancels-lecture-by-rajiv-gandhi-assassination-convict-ag-perarivalan
You can agree or dis-agree with him, but his right to speak cannot be muffled.
Another example of Cancel culture, where many are protesting simply because INC is the victim?
- Feeding into the perverse Dravidian nationalist narrative that the LTTE are "freedom fighters"
- The far-left tendency to "intellectualise" the issue of death penalty, to the extent of ignoring victim's rights
etc etc
Ah, I wish this was satirical.
Here's some additional context from his wikipedia page: "According to the CBI, Perarivalan confessed on August 14, 1991, and August 15, 1991 to purchasing the batteries making him the main suspect. Right from the start, Perarivalan had firmly stated that his confession statements were distorted.[17] He has since said that he was unaware of the purpose for which he was buying the batteries, and has consistently maintained his innocence.[18] Perarivalan would repeatedly say during his time in jail that giving a battery shouldn't equate to him knowing about the plot.
Perarivalan's case took a turn in 2013 when V. Thiagarajan, a former CBI superintendent of police, acknowledged to tampering with his confession in a documentary by filmmakers from the People's Movement Against the Death Penalty, that he did not take down his statement verbatim."
It's a lecture organized by a criminal justice reform research center at a law school to hear from a person who believes and maintains he is innocent but spent 30 years of his life in jail despite the fact that one of the investigating officers admitted to tampering with the accused's statement. And we don't want to hear about it? The guy is free now. The highest court of the land set him free. And we don't want to listen to a person who could have shared their harrowing journey with India's broken criminal justice system so MAYBE we can try to learn from it and fix it.
BUT NO. We're judge-y as fuck and there's no way we're open minded enough to change our ill-informed pre-conceived notions when somebody attempts to present a different perspective.
Shame.
judge karna to bannta bro
respectfully,
former troll
It is ironic that in a legal forum, some pseudo liberal is attempting to justify crimes of a man by relying on Wikipedia as opposed to pointing out fallacies in the judgments convicting him / upholding his conviction.
India's criminal justice system is not just reformative, it is deterrence too. By idolising criminals, and giving them stage in front of young 18-22 year old hot blooded individuals who couldn't care less about distinguishing between what is propoganda and what is reality, P39A was going to commit a blunder.
I am glad that NLUD chose to be reasonable and cancel the lecture instead of bowing down to the pressure of pseudo wokes, pseudo liberals and pseudo intellectuals.
be able to distinguish between
There are serious doubts about whether this guy even committed a crime in this case. I used Wikipedia because I didn’t have the patience to find and cite sources seeing as I’m writing a comment on an online forum and not an academic paper but here you go you lazy judgy ▮▮▮. Take your pick of sources that you won’t immediately label and dismiss. Or find your own, I don’t care.
The Hindu -
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/former-cbi-official-says-he-did-not-record-perarivalans-confession-verbatim/article5384370.ece
Times of India -
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/ex-cbi-man-altered-rajiv-death-accuseds-statement/articleshow/26283700.cms
The intent of the lecture was to learn from a first-person account of someone who lost 31 years, i.e. close to half of their only life, because an unethical police officer without a conscience manipulated the accused’s statement. 31 years. I haven’t even turned 30 yet and this guy had wrongfully been in prison longer than I’ve been alive. He was 19 or 20 I think when he was imprisoned. Can you even imagine how that might feel like? 19 / 20 year olds are usually second / third year college students.
Anyway, if you bothered to pay attention at all, the intent of the lecture was “…”.