JUDGMENT : S. Vaidyanathan, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ. (Prayer: Directing the respondents to furnish the copies of the G.O.MS.No. 603 to 615 home (PRI-IV) department dated 08.11.2019 on payment of charges if any at the earliest as the government of Tamil Nadu has ordered and released 13 life convicts whose conviction and Sentence of life had been confirmed by the Honourable supreme Court of India on 22.10.2009.) Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 18.11.2019, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who took notice, had produced G.O.Ms.Nos.603 to 615, Home (Pri.IV) Department, dated 08.11.2019, pursuant to which, 13 life convicts were released in this case. A copy of the Government Orders was also furnished to Mr.P.Rathinam, who is appearing as a party-in-person. We had called for the entire files and the files were also furnished before this Court. We are taking cognizance of the Government Orders that have been referred supra and also the files that have been placed before us. Taking into consideration the seriousness and sensitivity involved in the issue, this Court wants to test the basis on which the Government Orders were passed. In the meantime, Mr.P.Rathinam, Petitioner-in-person, requested this Court to permit him to amend the prayer in the Writ Petition and permit him to challenge the Government Orders that have been referred supra. The Petitioner also requested permission to add additional grounds in the Writ Petition, since he is going to challenge the Government Orders. Permission is granted and the Petitioner is permitted to file necessary petitions for amending the relief in the Writ Petition and for adding the additional grounds in the Writ Petition. 2. Before taking any decision in this Writ Petition or passing any further orders in this Writ Petition, we thought it appropriate to implead the 13 life convicts, who have been released by the Government. We cannot pass any final orders without hearing these 13 life convicts. The following 13 life convicts are suo-motu added as respondents 4 to 16 in this Writ Petition. 1. Chinna Odunkan (LCT No.3809), Son of Periyapanayan, Melavalavu Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 2. Selvam (LCT No.3812), Son of Pitchai, Melavalavu Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 3. Manokaran (LCT No.3803), Son of Velliyankiri, Melavalavu Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 4. Manikandan (LCT No.3801), Son of Kanchivanam, Nagappanpatti Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 5. 1. Chinna Odunkan (LCT No.3809), Son of Periyapanayan, Melavalavu Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 2. Selvam (LCT No.3812), Son of Pitchai, Melavalavu Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 3. Manokaran (LCT No.3803), Son of Velliyankiri, Melavalavu Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 4. Manikandan (LCT No.3801), Son of Kanchivanam, Nagappanpatti Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 5. Azhagu (LCT No.3808), Son ofMookan @ Nalliappan, Melavalavu Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 6. Chokkanathan (LCT No.3811), Son of Ambalam, Melavalavu Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 7. Sekar (LCT No.3813), Son of Pandi, Kavattaiyanpatti, Ettimangalam Post, Melur Taluka, Madurai District. 8. Ponnaiah (LCT No.3799), Son of Uzhaganathan, Melavalavu Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 9. Rajendran (LCT No.3810), Son of Karuthappanayan, Melavalavu Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 10. Ranganathan (LCT No.3804), Son of Nallusamy, Melavalavu Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 11.Ramar (LCT No.5222), Son of Subbaiah Ambalam, S. Othapatti, Puthusukkanpatti Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 12. Sakkarai Murthy (LCT No.3807), Son of Nallusamy, Melavalavu Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 13. Andichamy (LCT No.3802), Son of Andikkalai, Melavalavu Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 3. The first respondent shall file a status report before this Court providing details with regard to the materials that were considered before coming to the conclusion to release the 13 life convicts. The status report shall specifically address the following issues: (a) Admittedly, in this case, the life convicts apart from being convicted for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, were also charged for the offence under Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the appeals filed by the accused persons and the Criminal Revision filed by the Petitioner herein, has come to a categorical conclusion that the act of the accused persons is not merely to murder the deceased, but also to terrorise the entire Scheduled Caste Community who dared to stand in the Panchayat election. This Court also held that the entire incident had happened only to terrorise the Dalit Community and prevent them from participating in the election and the entire attack had occurred solely because they belong to a particular community. This Court further held that what the Ambalakarars could not achieve legally, has been achieved by resorting to violence and taking law into their own hands. This Court further held that what the Ambalakarars could not achieve legally, has been achieved by resorting to violence and taking law into their own hands. This Court also expressed its anquish by stating that the prosecution has clearly proved the charge under Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but, however, since no appeal was filed by the State and the incident had happened nine years before, this Court was not in a position to convict the accused persons and punish them for the offence under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This judgment was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court and the judgment was also reported in (2010) 12 SCC 427 (Alagarsamy and others .vs. The State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurai). Whether the concerned authority had taken into consideration these specific findings that have been given by this Court while considering the appeals filed by the accused persons, at the time when the Government Orders were passed releasing the life convicts? (b) This Court had already passed an order in W.P(MD)Nos.9176 and 9177 of 2019, dated 15.4.2019, wherein, the Government was directed to consider the representations made by the Petitioner and one Perumal and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Whether any order was passed by giving an opportunity to the Petitioner, before Government Orders were passed on 8.11.2019, releasing the life convicts? (c) Whenever such remission Government Orders are passed which results in premature release of the life convicts, whether it is considered according to the seniority or it is taken out of turn and considered and if it is taken according to the seniority, the concerned authority shall provide the particulars as to how many such representations for premature release has been given by other life convicts before or at the time when it was given by the 13 life convicts, involved in this case and is pending as on today? (d) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has circulated the address of the 13 life convicts, who were released pursuant to the Government Orders and it is seen that all of them are now residing at Melavalavu post. (d) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has circulated the address of the 13 life convicts, who were released pursuant to the Government Orders and it is seen that all of them are now residing at Melavalavu post. It is an admitted case that the entire incident has caste overtones and that was specifically taken into consideration by this Court while deciding the Criminal Appeals. Whether the concerned authority had taken into consideration the impact or the effect the Government Orders will have, on the community which was subjected to attack and whether their safety and security in future was taken into consideration, before the Government Orders were passed? 4. The status report shall be filed during the next date of hearing. Post this case on 25.11.2019. A copy of this order shall be issued to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.