Despite our best efforts, Father Stan Swamy could not be saved: Bombay High Court condoles activist's death

The Bombay High Court on Monday expressed its condolences and remorse at the passing away of octogenarian activist and Bhima Koregaon case accused, Father Stan Swamy..Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, appearing for Swamy, had moved the Court for an urgent hearing of the bail plea filed by Swamy. During the hearing, a Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar was informed by Dr. Ian D'Souza, medical director of Holy Family Hospital, that Swamy had passed away on Monday afternoon. .The Court expressed its shock and remorse at the news received, stating,"With all humility at our command, we are sorry to hear this. This is a shocking news. We passed the order to take him to the hospital of his choice. We have no words to express out condolences.""We are sorry to know that despite your (the hospital) best efforts, Father Stan Swamy is not with us," Justice Jamadar said to Dr. D'Souza, acknowledging the hospitals efforts..Justice Shinde appreciated Desai's efforts to convince Swamy to get admitted to a hospital to ensure that he is treated for his deteriorating health."At the cost of repetition, our deepest condolences and may his soul rest in peace. We all share this. We appreciate your efforts, you prevailed over him. He could go to the hospital, he got the best medical treatment. Unfortunately, he could not survive," Justice Shinde conveyed..Swamy had moved an application seeking temporary bail on medical grounds in the appeals challenging the orders of the Special NIA Court refusing him bail. The Court had directed the Maharashtra government to transfer the octogenarian priest to a private hospital for 15 days in view of his deteriorating health. In an earlier hearing, Swamy had specifically refused to get admitted to any hospital and requested for release on interim bail. However upon the counselling of Desai, he agreed to be admitted to the Holy Family Hospital, where he breathed his last..Dr D'Souza informed the Court that on July 4, Swamy suffered from a cardiac arrest after which he was put on a ventilator. Subsequent to that, he never gained consciousness. At 1:24 pm on Monday, he was declared dead. .Desai submitted to the Court that while he appreciated the efforts by the hospital and the Court to ensure that Swamy was given the best of treatment, he could not share the same view for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Taloja Jail authorities. He sought for a judicial enquiry into Swamy's arrest, custody and his death on the grounds that he was taken to the JJ hospital three times before he was admitted to Holy Family Hospital, and yet he was never tested for COVID-19..The Court observed that under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a magistrate was empowered to hold an enquiry into a custodial death of an undertrial. It thus passed a direction giving liberty to the magistrate to initiate appropriate enquiries into the issues as it deemed fit..The Court was informed that the prison authorities will be conducting a post-mortem and an inquest panchnama, which was standard protocol to be followed before handing over Swamy's body.Agreeing to the procedures that have to be conducted by the prison authorities, Desai requested that post the formalities, Swamy's body be handed over to his friend Father Frazer Mascarenhas, as Swamy did not have any family or relatives. .He submitted that while it was part of procedure to approach the Special Court conducting the trial for this purpose, it would be difficult to determine who is a relative, since Swamy had no familial ties.Desai thus requested the High Court to not relegate the matter to the Special Court and to instead pass appropriate directions itself.Allowing the request, the Court also clarified in its order that all necessary enquiries including the enquires under Section 176 shall be made by the concerned magistrate."This order may not be construed as an expression on the relevant issue at hand," the order clarified..After passing the order, the Court listed the matter for hearing on July 13, 2021.