Stan Swamy Died Natural Death, MSHRC Concludes; Bombay HC Adjourns Plea to Clear Name

Mumbai, India – The Bombay High Court was informed this week that a mandatory magisterial inquiry has concluded Father Stan Swamy, the late Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist accused in the Elgar Parishad-Bhima Koregaon case, died a "natural death" with no evidence of medical negligence. This development comes as the court continues to hear a separate, profound plea seeking to posthumously clear Swamy's name, raising critical questions about the intersection of an individual's right to reputation under Article 21 and the abatement of criminal proceedings upon death.

A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale was apprised by the State that the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) had accepted the inquiry report on May 2, 2025. The report, conducted under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), found no foul play or unnatural circumstances surrounding the activist's passing in July 2021.

Accepting the findings, the MSHRC order stated, "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." The inquiry detailed that Swamy, who suffered from Parkinson's disease among other ailments, received "prompt" medical treatment and ultimately succumbed to "septicaemia due to lobar pneumonia, which is natural death."

While this report addresses the circumstances of his death in custody, the central legal battle in the High Court, initiated by Father Fraser Mascarenhas, former principal of Mumbai's St. Xavier's College, remains unresolved. The petition, filed in December 2021, seeks to quash adverse observations made by the special NIA court in its March 2021 order that denied Swamy bail, arguing these remarks permanently "besmirch" his reputation and legacy.

The Unprecedented Plea: Reputation Beyond the Grave

The petition, argued by Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, posits a significant constitutional question: Does the fundamental right to reputation, an integral part of Article 21, survive an individual's death? The plea contends that allowing the special court's observations—which formed the basis for denying him liberty—to stand unexamined violates Swamy's posthumous right to dignity. Swamy was the oldest of the 16 activists arrested in the case under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and died in a private hospital awaiting his bail hearing.

The petitioner argues that since Swamy's death abated the trial, he was never afforded the opportunity to prove his innocence and challenge the prima facie findings of the NIA court. Therefore, the "odium of the accusation" remains attached to his name, impacting a lifetime of work in human and tribal rights.

NIA's Robust Counter: Abatement is Not Acquittal

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has vehemently opposed the petition, asserting that it is an unconstitutional attempt to use Article 21 as a "tool to expunge the charges which stand prima facie established." In its affidavit, the agency maintains that while the trial against Swamy has abated, the allegations and evidence collected against him remain part of the judicial record.

"To say that the odium of the accusation of Stan Swamy has followed him to the grave is highly depreciated," the NIA's affidavit reads. It argues that Swamy was arrested following due process and based on sufficient evidence of his alleged involvement in CPI (Maoist) activities. The agency contends that accepting the petitioner's argument would "backseat the course of law" and set a dangerous precedent where an accused's public persona could override the legal process.

The NIA's stance is that abatement of a trial due to the accused's demise does not equate to an acquittal or a declaration of innocence. The agency stresses its duty to "bring an offender to book," and suggests that expunging charges or observations posthumously would "clog the wheels of justice."

Procedural Hurdles and Judicial Recusals

The journey of this unique petition through the Bombay High Court has been notably complex. Since its filing in December 2021, the matter has been listed nearly eight times before five different division benches. Significantly, three of these benches, headed by now-Supreme Court Justice Prasanna Varale, Justice Sadhana Jadhav (now retired), and senior-most Bombay High Court Judge Revati Mohite-Dere, have recused themselves from hearing the case, adding another layer of intrigue to the proceedings.

Following the submission of the MSHRC report, Senior Advocate Mihir Desai sought time to review the document and the Commission's order. The bench led by Justice Gadkari has accordingly adjourned the matter beyond the court's Diwali vacations.

Broader Implications for Constitutional and Criminal Jurisprudence

The final outcome of Frazer Mascarenhas vs National Investigation Agency will have far-reaching implications. It forces a direct confrontation between two competing legal principles: the finality of pre-trial judicial observations upon the abatement of a case, and the enduring nature of the fundamental right to dignity and reputation under Article 21.

For legal professionals, the case serves as a crucial touchstone for several contemporary legal debates:

• The Scope of Posthumous Rights: The court's decision could significantly expand or clarify the jurisprudence on posthumous fundamental rights, particularly the right to reputation for individuals who die before the conclusion of their trial.
• The Finality of Bail Orders: It will scrutinize the weight and permanence of prima facie findings in bail orders under stringent laws like the UAPA, especially when the accused is deprived of a full trial to contest them.
• The Role of the Judiciary in Protecting Legacy: The petition effectively asks the judiciary to act as a guardian not just of a person's life and liberty, but also of their legacy and name after death.

As the legal community awaits the next hearing, the case of Father Stan Swamy continues to evolve, transitioning from a contentious UAPA prosecution into a landmark constitutional query about justice, reputation, and the enduring reach of the law beyond a person's lifetime.