The Swami case: A crime that could have been prevented
This was no first-time slip. The system had multiple opportunities to intervene. Had earlier cases been pursued to their conclusion, had bail been monitored, and had institutional checks been enforced, the accused would not have had the same kind of access to the victims.
As a police officer, I have often said: Many crimes are not just tragedies, they are failures of prevention. The recent case of Swami Chaitanyananda Saraswati alias Parthasarathy proves this point with painful clarity.
The swami, who served as the director of Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management in Vasant Kunj, now faces allegations of sexually harassing at least 17 students. Survivors allege he sent obscene messages, made unwanted advances, and threatened to fail those who resisted. He appears to have been a ‘sleazebag’ with compulsive sexual behaviour, apart from a multi-crore fraudster.
The most disturbing part? He had a criminal history. He was booked for fraud in 2009 and arrested in 2016 for molesting a student from the same institute. Despite this, he was granted bail, allowed to resume his position, and continued to enjoy influence and authority.
When students finally gathered courage to file a fresh complaint in August this year, the Swami fled. It’s not known if absconder notices have been sent and the prosecution has filed for cancellation of bails, with forfeiture of earlier sureties, but raids are on across multiple states.
Investigators have since recovered a luxury car with a fake UN diplomatic number plate and evidence of tampered closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera records — pointing to a pattern of deception, evasion, and institutional cover-up.
This was not an unpredictable tragedy. It was a preventable crime.
A known offender, yet free
This was no first-time slip. The system had multiple opportunities to intervene. Had earlier cases been pursued to their conclusion, had bail been monitored, and had institutional checks been enforced, the accused would not have had the same kind of access to the victims.
Instead of deterrence, he drew confidence from the very gaps in our justice and policing systems. Every delay, every silence, strengthened him and weakened the protections that should have safeguarded the students.
“Every delay in justice, every blind eye turned by institutions, was not just a lapse — it was an open invitation to the next crime.”
Missed preventive steps
Delayed trials: Cases from 2009 and 2016 lingered without resolution. Swift trial and conviction could have removed him from authority.
Bail without safeguards: Bail was granted by the courts with no restrictions. He returned to the same institute and the same pool of potential victims.
Absence of a history sheet: Such repeat offenders should be placed on police watchlists and monitored by beat officers. But no preventive surveillance was carried out by the police.
Institutional negligence: The institute failed to enforce the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act, which mandates an internal complaints committee to address harassment. Complaints were ignored or suppressed. In this case, girls did complain to the police but to no avail.
Regulatory and administrative failure: Neither the education directorate nor the sponsoring trust checked his background before allowing him to continue as director.
Such areas also have resident welfare associations. Should they not know what is amiss?
Delayed forensic response: Deleted chats and tampered CCTVs point to slow action in seizing and preserving critical evidence.
The larger lesson
Prevention is the first duty of policing. Known offenders should never get a chance to reoffend, especially in sensitive environments like schools, colleges, and hostels. For that, we need swift trials by courts, strict bail conditions, vigilant policing, and institutions that take their legal responsibilities seriously.
The Swami case is a reminder that when systems fail, predators thrive. And when predators thrive, the most vulnerable pay the price.
This was not just a crime. It was a preventable crime. And that distinction makes it a collective failure of justice, policing, and institutional accountability.
This case is not an exception. It’s becoming the rule and all are equally responsible.
Most of all, it’s an utter failure in the criminal justice system.
