Bandi Singh: Why Punjab and Tamil Nadu took divergent paths in long-term prisoner release
The question of clemency has occupied a distinctive place in India’s legal and political landscape, particularly in cases linked to extraordinary periods of conflict or national trauma. Among these, two clusters of prisoners have generated sustained debate over several decades: the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case in Tamil Nadu, and the Sikh prisoners commonly referred to as Bandi Singhs in Punjab. Both sets of cases involve grave offences, long incarceration, and complex legal processes. A comparative examination of how the two states have addressed demands for release illustrates the differing institutional pathways for pursuing clemency within India’s federal system.
Historical vocabulary and the meaning of Bandi Singh
In Punjab’s context, the expression Bandi Singh has a distinct cultural and historical inflection. It recalls the Sikh memory of Bandi Chhor Diwas, associated with the release of Guru Hargobind Sahib and other detainees from Gwalior Fort. During the militancy period of the 1980s and early 1990s, a number of individuals were arrested, charged, and convicted under special laws or in the course of counter-insurgency operations. Many of those who remain in custody today have served sentences extending well beyond two or three decades. For their supporters, the vocabulary of Bandi Singh reflects the belief that their incarceration belongs to a specific historical moment rather than to ordinary criminality. This perception, whether universally accepted or not, forms a backdrop to the contemporary conversation.
Life imprisonment and the framework of clemency
The legal foundation for any discussion of release is straightforward. In Indian law, a life sentence means imprisonment for the remainder of the prisoner’s natural life unless it is reduced through remission or commutation by the appropriate government. The Supreme Court has rejected the belief that a life sentence ends automatically after fourteen years in several judgments.
Clemency may be exercised either through constitutional provisions—Articles 72 and 161, by the President or Governor, respectively—or through statutory remission under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Determining which government has authority in a given case depends on multiple factors: the statute under which the conviction occurred, whether State or Central agencies investigated the case, and whether provisions like Section 435 CrPC require consultation or concurrence between the two levels of government. The judiciary generally enters the picture only when remission has been denied, delayed, or disputed, or when the matter requires extraordinary intervention to resolve uncertainties.
This architecture governs both the Rajiv Gandhi and Bandi Singh contexts, though the two situations developed along different institutional trajectories.
The assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and the legal course in Tamil Nadu
On 21 May 1991, former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated at Sriperumbudur by a suicide bomber associated with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The explosion killed him along with a number of others present at the rally. The investigation was carried out by a Special Investigation Team of the CBI. Forty-one individuals were originally charge-sheeted before a special TADA court. In 1998, the court convicted twenty-six of them. In 1999, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of seven, confirming the death sentences of four while commuting the sentences of three others to life imprisonment.
As the years passed, the status of the life convicts became a recurring political issue in Tamil Nadu. The state government, under different administrations, made several formal moves related to their remission. These included Cabinet decisions recommending release, Assembly resolutions, and official communication with the Union government. In 2014, the state announced its intention to release the seven convicts and sought the Centre’s view as required under Section 435 CrPC, which mandates consultation with the Central government in cases investigated by Central agencies. The Centre opposed the move, and the matter went before the Supreme Court.
The Governor’s decision on the State Cabinet’s recommendation remained pending for several years. Meanwhile, the families of the convicts and various political actors continued to approach the courts seeking clarity. In May 2022, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to release A.G. Perarivalan, citing factors such as prolonged incarceration, satisfactory conduct, and the existence of an unresolved state recommendation. In November 2022, the Court extended similar relief to the remaining six convicts. The Court’s reasoning referred to the length of imprisonment, rehabilitation, and the pending nature of the State Cabinet’s advice, while acknowledging the statutory and constitutional contours of the case.
The Bandi Singh cases in Punjab
The individuals commonly described as Bandi Singhs were convicted during Punjab’s insurgency period under a mix of statutes, including the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, and, in some instances, special laws such as TADA. Several cases involved investigations by Central agencies or provisions whose remission requires consultation with or concurrence from the Union government. As a result, the authority to remit sentences varies depending on the specifics of each case.
Public advocacy for their release has been led principally by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), a statutory religious body established under Central legislation. The SGPC has undertaken signature campaigns, submitted memoranda to the President and the Governor, and highlighted individual cases that, in its view, merit reconsideration in light of long incarceration. The organisation regularly states that many of these prisoners have already served periods beyond what is commonly described as a “life term” in practical terms, and some have completed over three decades in custody.
The Punjab government has acknowledged the existence of these cases and has, on various occasions, indicated the legal complexities arising from the applicable statutes and from the role of Central agencies. Where state authority is available, remission proposals may be initiated; where Central concurrence is required, the matter rests partly or wholly with the Union government. Discussions surrounding specific individuals, including those whose death sentences have been recommended for commutation by the Centre, continue to feature in public and political discourse, though the procedural outcomes remain varied.
A comparative view of state approaches
Although the two sets of cases are not identical, comparing them provides insight into how different states navigate the same constitutional framework. In Tamil Nadu, the repeated adoption of Cabinet and Assembly resolutions, direct correspondence with the Centre, and judicial engagement constituted the primary pathway through which clemency was pursued. The process involved direct executive action followed by adjudication when points of law or procedure remained unresolved.
In Punjab, by contrast, the SGPC and other civil institutions have taken the initiative in mobilising petitions, gathering public support, and presenting formal demands for reconsideration. The Punjab government, while noting the concerns raised by these bodies, has pointed to statutory constraints and the need for Central involvement in particular cases. The State’s formal steps have therefore moved at a different pace and followed different channels.
The result is two contrasting institutional patterns: one where the state executive is the primary driver of remission proposals and another where non-governmental institutions serve as the principal advocates while the executive engages within a narrower legal space.
Justice after long incarceration
Both the Rajiv Gandhi convicts and the Bandi Singhs have spent extended periods in custody. In the former case, the Supreme Court’s observations referenced the significance of three decades of imprisonment, conduct records, and pending state recommendations. In the latter, public advocates similarly emphasise length of incarceration, age, health, and changed circumstances, though each case must naturally be assessed according to its specific legal context and statutory framework.
The broader question—how the justice system accounts for the passage of time in politically charged cases—remains open. Clemency provisions exist because the meaning of punishment may evolve as circumstances change. Comparing the two states shows that identical legal frameworks can produce different institutional responses depending on which actors take the lead, how constitutional powers are invoked, and what procedural routes are chosen.
An unanswered question
When viewed side by side, the two trajectories present Indian federalism in action: different histories, different political considerations, different uses of constitutional authority. The Rajiv Gandhi convicts were released following a sequence of state-level initiatives and eventual judicial intervention. The Bandi Singh matter continues to move through a combination of civil advocacy, legal complexity, and administrative processes involving both the state and the Centre.
Placed in parallel, these developments naturally prompt a single question arising not from argument but from comparison: why have the institutional pathways in Punjab unfolded so differently from those in Tamil Nadu, despite the presence of long-serving prisoners in both contexts?
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- Bandi Singh release: The question of clemency and how different governments approach it - December 7, 2025
- Guru Tegh Bahadur, the Harbinger of freedom of conscience in India - November 26, 2025
