Stan Swamy 1

PUDR’s report, Framed to Die: The Case of Stan Swamy, offers an exhaustive account of what lay behind Stan Swamy’s death in judicial custody in a private hospital on 5 July 2021. As is known, he was arrested from his room in Bagaicha ATC campus on 8 October 2020 under S. 120 B, 121 A, 124 A and 34 of the IPC and under S. 13, 16, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA. 84 years old Stan Swamy was the last person to be arrested in the Bhima Koregaon case and he was in judicial custody for nine months, in Taloja Central Jail.

Framed to Die addresses why and how the state penalized Stan Swamy under the UAPA, a punishment that precipitated his death in judicial custody. It documents the process by which Stan Swamy was framed, fettered, and finally forced towards a fatal illness under due process of law called the UAPA. The charges levelled reveal the state’s deep prejudice against an upright activist who spent decades in building and empowering Adivasi rights against historic neglect and exploitation. 

The report reminds that prior to his incarceration, his failing health was well known, but he was not granted even medical bail let alone regular bail. The NIA and the prison authorities refused to acknowledge the deterioration that he suffered in prison, and they failed to uphold his rights as a prisoner, a right to decent health care and facilities. 

The four main chapters address Stan Swamy’s life and politics; how he was framed under the UAPA from 2018 onwards; how the prosecution and the NIA special court thwarted his efforts at obtaining bail; and the specific ways in which the prison conditions as well as the attitude of the prison administration contributed to his deteriorating condition leading to his death. 

Stan’s persecution under the law offers an understanding of how many others, including the 15 accused in the Bhima Koregaon case have been similarly punished by the state for their dissenting politics. In the conclusion, the report demands action against the Jailor, Kaustabh Kurlekar for wilful neglect; against the NIA counsel for opposing the medical bails and for misleading the courts into believing that the prison health facilities were sufficient; a judicial probe into the health infrastructure at Taloja Central Jail; the withdrawal of the Bhima Koregaon case and immediate release of the 15 accused; and the repeal of the UAPA and the release of all political prisoners held under it.

You can find the report here.

Radhika Chitkara

Vikas Kumar

Secretaries

People’s Union for Democratic Rights  (PUDR)


Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B. Subscribe to our Telegram channel


GET COUNTERCURRENTS DAILY NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX


One Comment

  1. samir sardana says:

    Stan Swamy was killed by the scum of the NIA and the Dubious Indian Judiciary and Constitution

    STAN SWAMY, A PASTOR, 85 YEARS OLD,SUFFERING FROM PARKINSON, DENIED BAIL AND MEDICAL AID ,WAS KILLED BY THE NIA.He had to seek daily Court sanction for medical treatment.

    HE WAS FIGHTING FOR TRIBAL RIGHTS ! THIS IS THE STATE OF DALIT AND TRIBALS IN INDIA ! IF A PASTOR CAN BE KILLED – THEN WHAT OF THE TRIBALS ?

    Y MAOISM ? dindooohindoo

    NIA IS A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION OF SCUM – WHO DESERVE TO BE DESTROYED ! I CALL THEM PANDOOS AND KHAKI KE KUTTE !

    • Human Rights in this nation is a farce,as there is a limitation period for complaints on Human Rights Violations,in the PHR Bill . Such a provision does not even exist in the Pakistani National Commission for Human Rights Act, 2012,Act No. XVI OF 2012.

    • Another example of the farce of Human Rights In India is the Time limit for response from the State
    o As per Section 17(1)(a) of the PHR Act,there is no time limit for the GOI to respond to a query by the NHRC on a complaint – although the Act states that , the NHRC will indicate to the GOI the time limit for a response.
    o The 2nd Proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Pakistani National Commission for Human Rights Act, 2012,Act No. XVI OF 2012,in matters of security,provides a time of 30 days to the Govtt to respond,and else,proceeds to inquire into complaint on its own

    IT IS THIS WANTON CRIMINALITY OF THE INDIAN STATE, WHICH IS WHAT HAD RESULTED IN THE ECHR REJECTING A SOLEMN PLEDGE,OF “NO-TORTURE”, BY THE INDIAN STATE,IN THE CASE OF CHAHAL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 22414/93)
    • The court also found that Mr Chahal faced a ‘real risk’ of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 if returned to India, notwithstanding the assurance given by the Indian government that he would not be ill-treated:
    o “Although the Court does not doubt the good faith of the Indian government in providing the assurances … it would appear that, despite the efforts of that government, the [National Human Rights Commission] and the Indian courts to bring about reform, the violation of human rights by certain members of the security forces in Punjab and elsewhere in India is a recalcitrant and enduring problem … Against this background, the Court is not persuaded that the above assurances would provide Mr Chahal with an adequate guarantee of safety”

    THERE ARE SEVERAL COURT STRICTURES ON ACQUITTAL OF UAPA ACCUSED – WHICH PROVES THAT NIA IS SCUM AND FIT TO BE CULLED !

    Jalandhar fast track court acquitted Manjit, seven others in a case registered against them under UAPA at Bhogpur police station in Jalandhar on September 28, 2009

    • Court stated “From all this evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove any link of recoveries made from accused or transactions of money with any terrorist act or organisation.Simple statement of DSP Rajinder Singh Sohal that he received secret information is not sufficient to hold the accused having committed or attempted to have committed any such offence”

    UAPA case was registered against Kobad Gandhy on January 1, 2010

    • The court observed: “In this case, neither any recovery was affected at the instance of accused. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was pertaining to a militant group or he was having any nexus with enemy countries, there is no evidence on record to show the accused was having any link with terrorist activities or militant group. … Supreme Court… has held, that mere membership of a banned organisation cannot incriminate a person..

    UAPA and Arms Act on Sept 15, 2013,at Purana Shalla police station in Gurdaspur Gurpreet Singh and 11 others

    • The trial court observed: “So many disclosures were recorded to show that he (Gurpreet Singh) had kept concealed and got recovered the ammunition from different parts of the country between November 7 and 9, 2014. It is highly impossible for anyone to move such distances cities in three days. It shows prosecution only wants to implicate him by hook or crook

    IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PURPOSE OF NIA AND THE INDIAN STATE IS TO TERRORISE AND TRAUMATISE THE ACCUSED AND SEND A MESSAGE TO SOCIETY AS TO THE FATE OF THOSE WHO DISSENT – AND TO SEND A SIGNAL TO THE PEOPLE THAT THE NIA AND THE INDIAN STATE CAN VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF INDIANS AT WILL

    IN ADDITION,NIA USES THESE DUBIOUS ENQUIRIES TO “DIG DIRT ON AN ACCUSED” AND THEN USE THE INFORMATION TO COERCE AND BLACKMAIL THE ACCUSED – A TRAIT OF HEATHENS AND MENIALS.