Swami Shraddhanand, born Murali Manohar Mishra, an 85-year-old self-styled godman, has petitioned the Supreme Court of India for an expedited decision on his pending mercy plea. He has been incarcerated for over 30 years following his conviction for the 1991 murder of his wife, Shakereh Khaleeli, the granddaughter of Sir Mirza Ismail, the former Dewan of Mysore. Throughout his imprisonment, Shraddhanand has not been granted a single day of parole.
Background of the Case
In 1986, Shakereh Khaleeli ended her 21-year marriage to Indian Foreign Service officer Akbar Mirza Khaleeli and married Shraddhanand. Around May 1991, she disappeared under mysterious circumstances. In June of that year, one of her daughters from her first marriage filed a missing persons report in Bangalore. After an extensive investigation, in 1994, authorities discovered Shakereh's remains buried in the backyard of her Bangalore residence. Investigations revealed that she had been drugged and buried alive by Shraddhanand after she had executed a general power of attorney and will in his favor.
Legal Proceedings and Sentencing
Following his arrest, a trial court in Bangalore convicted Shraddhanand of murder and, in 2000, sentenced him to death. The Karnataka High Court upheld this verdict in 2005. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court in 2008 commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment. However, the Court specified that he would remain in prison for the rest of his life without the possibility of remission, parole, or furlough.
Subsequent Appeals and Legal Actions
Over the years, Shraddhanand has filed multiple petitions challenging various aspects of his sentence. In a recent review petition, he contended that the imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of remission violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which pertain to equality before the law and the protection of life and personal liberty, respectively. He argued that such a sentence was, in some respects, more severe than capital punishment. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this review petition, maintaining that the sentence was justified given the gravity of the crime.
In another plea, Shraddhanand sought release on the grounds of his advanced age and deteriorating health, emphasizing his continuous incarceration without parole or remission and his good conduct during imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed this petition in September 2024, noting that he had already submitted a mercy petition to the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution, which grants the President the authority to pardon or commute sentences in certain cases.
Current Petition for Expedited Decision
In his latest legal move, Shraddhanand has approached the Supreme Court seeking an expedited decision on his pending mercy petition. His counsel, Advocate Varun Thakur, highlighted that Shraddhanand has been in continuous custody for over three decades without any parole and is suffering from various ailments due to his advanced age. The petition underscores the prolonged delay in the consideration of his mercy plea and requests the Court to direct the relevant authorities to expedite the decision-making process.
Judicial Observations and Remarks
During the hearing, Justice B.R. Gavai, presiding over the bench, remarked on the uniqueness of Shraddhanand's case, noting that it was among the first instances where the Supreme Court adopted a "middle-path law." This approach involves imposing a life sentence without the possibility of remission as an alternative to the death penalty, representing a middle ground between traditional life imprisonment and capital punishment.
Implications and Broader Context
The case of Swami Shraddhanand has been pivotal in shaping the discourse on sentencing in capital offenses in India. The Supreme Court's 2008 judgment to impose a life sentence without the possibility of remission introduced a nuanced approach to punishment, aiming to balance the severity of the crime with considerations of human rights and the evolving standards of decency in society.
Shraddhanand's prolonged incarceration without parole has sparked debates on the ethics and legality of life sentences without the possibility of release. Critics argue that such sentences may infringe upon fundamental human rights and can be more punitive than death sentences, especially when considering the psychological impact of indefinite imprisonment. Proponents, however, contend that for particularly heinous crimes, such sentences are justified to ensure public safety and serve as a deterrent.
As Shraddhanand awaits the outcome of his mercy petition, his case continues to serve as a significant reference point in discussions about criminal justice, sentencing reforms, and the balance between punishment and rehabilitation in the Indian legal system.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.