In Stan Swamy case, justice system on trial

That every undertrial in the Elgar Parishad case has spent years behind bars is a sorry commentary on the criminal justice system

Proceedings in the Bombay High Court over a petition that seeks to remove the “odium” of criminal charges against Jesuit priest, Father Stan Swamy, who died in custody in July 2021 while awaiting trial in the Elgar Parishad case, present an interesting dichotomy. On the legal aspect, the National Investigation Agency is correct in opposing the petition and arguing that the death cannot be used by the petitioner to assume that Swamy was not guilty. After all, innocence or guilt is a matter to be established in the course of a trial, according to set judicial principles. Any assertion to the contrary would supersede the well-established rule of law and violate due process. The petitioner’s argument — that the charges caused widespread hatred against the priest and damaged his reputation, and, therefore, he should be absolved of the accusations and his name be cleared due to his death — cannot replace a trial.

The Jesuit priest was one of 16 people arrested under the UAPA for his alleged role in the violence that broke out at Maharashtra’s Bhima Koregaon in 2018. Despite the provisions invoked and high-profile charges, trial has not begun in a single case. (HT Archive)

But there is a larger point. The Jesuit priest was one of 16 people arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for his alleged role in the violence that broke out at Maharashtra’s Bhima Koregaon in 2018. Despite the provisions invoked and high-profile charges, trial has not begun in a single case. In instances where the courts have granted bail, they have also commented on the apparent lack of evidence. Moreover, the 84-year-old Parkinson’s patient’s incarceration was complicated by allegations of callous behaviour by jail authorities. That every undertrial in the case has spent years behind bars is a sorry commentary on the criminal justice system — for which both the judiciary and the prosecuting agencies are responsible. No symbolic exoneration can replace that call for accountability.