Five Years Since Stan Swamy’s Custodial Death: Questions Over UAPA, Undertrial Rights, and Judicial Delays Continue
As India marks five years since Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist Stan Swamy died in judicial custody, renewed debate over the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), prolonged pre-trial detention, and prison healthcare has resurfaced with little sign of systemic reform.
Five years after the custodial death of Father Stan Swamy, one of India’s most prominent undertrial prisoners, his case continues to shape discussions on civil liberties, anti-terror legislation and the rights of incarcerated persons. On the fifth anniversary of his death, legal commentators, human rights advocates and members of civil society argue that many of the concerns highlighted by his case—including prolonged detention without trial, restrictive bail provisions and access to medical care—remain unresolved.
Stan Swamy, an 84-year-old Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in October 2020 in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Suffering from Parkinson’s disease and other age-related ailments, he spent more than eight months in custody while repeatedly seeking bail on medical grounds. He died on 5 July 2021 while undergoing treatment at a Mumbai hospital after his health deteriorated.
His death became a defining moment in the national debate over the balance between national security and individual liberty. Images of the elderly priest struggling to obtain basic assistive items, including a straw and sipper because of Parkinson’s disease, drew widespread public attention and intensified scrutiny of prison conditions and the treatment of vulnerable undertrial prisoners.
Five years later, the Bhima Koregaon prosecution itself remains unfinished. While several co-accused have subsequently secured bail after courts questioned aspects of the prosecution’s case or prolonged incarceration, the trial has progressed slowly. Legal observers argue that lengthy investigations and delayed trials continue to raise concerns that extended detention can become punitive even before guilt or innocence is determined.
Civil liberties organisations have renewed calls for reforms to the UAPA, particularly its stringent bail provisions under Section 43D(5), which make release before trial exceptionally difficult. Critics argue that the law’s framework can result in accused persons remaining in custody for years while legal proceedings continue. Supporters of the legislation, however, maintain that such safeguards are necessary to combat terrorism and protect national security, emphasizing that investigations into complex terror-related conspiracies often require additional time.
The broader constitutional debate has also evolved. Courts in recent years have repeatedly stressed that personal liberty is a fundamental constitutional value, while also acknowledging Parliament’s intention to create a robust anti-terror framework through the UAPA. This continuing judicial balancing exercise has produced important bail rulings but has not fundamentally altered the structure of the legislation, leaving the larger policy debate unresolved.
Stan Swamy’s case also continues to influence discussions on prison healthcare. Human rights advocates argue that elderly prisoners, persons with disabilities and those suffering from serious illnesses require more responsive medical assessment and humane custodial conditions. They contend that humanitarian considerations should receive greater weight in bail decisions involving vulnerable accused persons without compromising the integrity of criminal investigations.
The Union Government and investigative agencies have consistently maintained that the UAPA remains an essential legal instrument against terrorism and organized extremist violence. They have argued that prosecutions under the Act are based on evidence collected during investigations and are subject to judicial oversight at every stage of the legal process. Questions regarding the merits of individual prosecutions continue to be adjudicated before the courts.
As India reflects on the fifth anniversary of Stan Swamy’s death, his case remains more than a historical episode. It continues to symbolize the difficult intersection of national security, constitutional freedoms, judicial accountability and prison reform. Whether future legal and institutional reforms emerge from these debates remains uncertain, but the issues raised by his custody, medical treatment and prolonged incarceration continue to influence conversations about the future of criminal justice and anti-terror laws in India.
