The petition submitted before the Bombay High Court asked for a judicial inquiry into the death of Father Stan Swamy and also requested that the “odium of guilt” attached to his name be erased. However, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed the plea and argued that granting such a request would create an undesirable precedent in the Indian legal system. According to the agency, removing the charges or disassociating Swamy’s name from the Elgar Parishad case without a full trial would undermine the legal process and distort the purpose of the criminal justice framework.
The petition had been filed by Father Frazer Mascarenhas, the former principal of St. Xavier’s College, roughly five months after the death of Father Swamy. It asked the court not only to order a judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Swamy’s demise but also to clear the taint of criminality attached to him. Swamy, who was 84 years old and a Jesuit priest dedicated to working for the welfare of Adivasi communities in Jharkhand, had been arrested by the NIA in October 2020 under allegations of links with banned Maoist groups. His health rapidly declined while he was lodged in Taloja Central Jail, and though his legal team filed repeated applications for bail on medical grounds, a special NIA court rejected them, citing “prima facie evidence” against him. Eventually, in July 2021, he passed away in a Mumbai hospital after contracting Covid-19, all while still being held in judicial custody.
During the hearing, senior advocate Mihir Desai, appearing on behalf of Mascarenhas, contended that because Swamy died while under judicial custody, the law mandated a magisterial inquiry into his death. The High Court then directed the Maharashtra government to clarify the current status of such an inquiry. An Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the state, asked for more time to file the details, and the court allowed a two-week extension for the government to submit its official response. At the same time, the NIA also submitted its reply in court, assuring the bench through advocate Chintan Shah that the petitioner would be served a copy of its submission.
In its response, the NIA firmly opposed Mascarenhas’s plea, pointing out that the trial court had already acknowledged prima facie evidence against Swamy. The agency emphasized that the determination of guilt or innocence could only be made after a proper trial was completed, not through petitions seeking posthumous exoneration. The NIA argued that entertaining such pleas would weaken the integrity of judicial procedures, and if courts began functioning in such a manner, the entire criminal justice system would lose its purpose and effectiveness.
The agency also expressed strong disapproval of the demand to clear Swamy’s name, describing it as surprising and unwarranted. It insisted that Swamy’s arrest had been carried out strictly according to due process and based on substantial evidence connecting him with the activities of the banned CPI (Maoist). The NIA noted that while Swamy’s death was unfortunate, the “odium of accusation” attached to him had naturally continued even after his passing, as the legal process had not reached a final verdict.
On the matter of inquiry into Swamy’s death, the NIA clarified that a magisterial probe under Section 176(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure — which specifically requires an investigation into any death occurring in custody — was already underway as per the High Court’s earlier direction. Since there was no evidence suggesting that the Magistrate had neglected this duty, the agency argued that Mascarenhas’s petition relied merely on assumptions rather than concrete proof.
After hearing both sides, the High Court scheduled the matter to be taken up again after two weeks, during which the Maharashtra government is expected to present its official update on the ongoing magisterial inquiry.
