'Father Stan Swamy Died Natural Death, Was Provided Prompt Medical Treatment': State Tells Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court was informed on Monday that a mandatory Magisterial Inquiry report on Father Stan Swamy's death was submitted before the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) earlier in May which concluded that he had died a 'natural death.'A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale was informed by the State that a bench of the MSHRC chairman Justice (retd) Anant Badar and Sanjay Kumar, Member had on May 2, 2025 accepted the Magistrate Inquiry report, which concluded that there was nothing 'unnatural' in Swamy's death and that there were no medical negligence too. "We are informed that the mandatory section 176 (of CrPC) report was submitted before the MSHRC, which has accepted the same. The counsel for the petitioner has sought time to go through the said report and also the order of MSHRC passed on May 2, 2025. Accordingly, matter is adjourned beyond (Diwali) vacations," Justice Gadkari dictated in the order. The report was submitted to the court by Additional Public Prosecutor MM Mhatre. According to the MSHRC order and the Inquiry Report, Swamy had a history of ailments including Parkinsons with MDD and that he was given 'prompt' medical treatment for his ailments. "...it is clear that there are no allegations about any mishap or anything which will suggest that the death occurred is unnatural, on account of certain other facts than the old age and illness of the deceased. He died due to septicaemia due to lobar pneumonia, which is natural death," the inquiry report reads. Accepting the same, the MSHRC in its order, had recorded, "The cause of death was not found to be unnatural or homicidal. No foul play or medical negligence has been found in this case. The Commission has not noticed any material indicating violation of human rights or negligence in protection of human rights."Notably, the instant plea filed in December 2021 by the next of kin of Father Stan Swamy, who sought clearing the now deceased (Swamy's) name from the Elgar Parishad - Bhima Koregaon case. The plea has been filed by Father Fraser Mascarenhas, the former principal of Xavier's College in Mumbai through senior advocate Mihir Desai.The petition stated that the observations of the special court against Swamy, in its March 2021 order refusing bail "besmirches" his reputation and body of work in tribal and human rights. The findings further violate his fundamental right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the said order should be quashed, the plea had sought.Swamy passed away due to a cardiac arrest in a private hospital ahead of his bail hearing in July 2021. He was the 16th and oldest civil liberties activist to be arrested in the case under the anti-terror Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, on October 8, 2020.Meanwhile, the NIA in its affidavit in response to the plea has contended that the trial against Swamy has stood abated but the allegations remain so."...to say that the odium of the accusation of Stan Swamy has followed him to the grave is highly depreciated. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner should be very responsible in making such a statement. The petitioner is making such statements accordingly to what he knows or wants to see Stan Swamy as without knowing the ground realities. The accused Stan Swamy was arrested after following the due procedure established by law, having sufficient evidence that establishes his involvement in furtherance of unlawful CPI (Maoists) activities and the same would be indecorous to be termed as such," the affidavit filed by the NIA reads.To the contention in the plea filed by Father Mascarenhas that continuing to show Swamy as an accused violates his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the NIA has contended that Article 2l enshrines the right to life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law."Therefore, the said right is being used as a tool to expunge the charges which stand prima facie established by the designated court is per se illegitimate and unconstitutional. The petitioner is stating without knowing the true facts of the case and he has stretched it too far to imply that the face value shall backseat the course of law, irrespective of offence committed by the accused. It is the duty of the State to bring an offender to book with a view to getting him punished for a crime committed by him, failing to do so will lead things into a chaotic situation and clog the wheels of justice," the affidavit reads.It would not be out of place to mention that this very petition filed in December 2021 till date, has been listed nearly 8 times before five different division benches of the High Court, of which three benches headed by Justices Prasanna Varale (now Supreme Court Judge), Sadhana Jadhav (now retired) and Revati Mohite-Dere (senior-most judge of Bombay HC) have recused from hearing the said matter. Case Title: Frazer Mascarenhas vs National...

'Father Stan Swamy Died Natural Death, Was Provided Prompt Medical Treatment': State Tells Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

Tags