SC Refused To Entertain Parole Plea Of Swami Shraddhanand Who Is Serving Life Sentence For Murder Of His Wife, Granddaughter Of Dewan Of Mysore

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, refused to entertain self-styled godman Swami Shraddhanand’s plea to be released on temporary parole. The 82 year old, Swami Shraddhanand alias Murali Manohar Mishra who has been in prison for almost 30 years now, is currently undergoing life imprisonment for the murder of his wife Shakereh Khaleeli - the granddaughter of Dewan of Mysore, Sir Mirza Ismail.

At the request of the Advocate, Varinder Kumar Sharma, appearing for Shraddhanand, a Bench comprising Justice KM Joseph, Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ashanuddin Amanullah granted permission to withdraw the writ petition, which was filed almost a decade back. The Bench clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition would not prejudice other remedies open to him in law.

The writ petition filed in 2014 largely consisted of two prayers - one was seeking directions of the Court to release Shraddhanand and the other was seeking grant of parole. The Bench, outright, rejected the first prayer, noting that granting the same would amount to violation of the order of the Apex Court that, while commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment, had clearly noted Shraddhanand ‘shall not be released from prison till the rest of his life’. Justice Joseph opined, “Normally life means life. Even if it means life, the sentence can be remitted in exercise of power under Section 433 CrPC, it can also be remitted under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, but when the highest court says that this is life and he shall not be released then can we release him? It is contrary to what has been laid down.” Moreover, it came to the notice of the Bench, that the petitioner had not even sought review of the judgment that precludes him from being released in his lifetime.

The Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Shraddhanand submitted that a plea for temporary parole would not be hit by the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. He argued that a temporary parole would mean he is still serving his sentence. It was submitted that the judgment did not say that he was not entitled to remission or parole.

Reminding the Senior Counsel that in the present case the Apex Court had commuted Shraddhanand’s death sentence to life imprisonment, Justice Joseph remarked, “We saved him from the noose, but at a price that you are…to pay for the rest of your life.”

Considering the fact that Shraddhnanda was convicted by a court situated in Karnataka, and was later shifted to Madhya Pradesh, Justice Nagarathna enquired which State would be the appropriate authority to consider the application for parole.

Advocate, Gopal Jha, appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh clarified that the MP Rules for the grant of parole would only apply to those who are convicted by courts in MP. However, the Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Shraddhanand’s parole application would be considered under the MP Rules.

Advocate, Shubhranshu Padhi, appearing for the State of Karnataka submitted that the offence was committed in Karnataka, the victim was from Karnataka and the conviction and sentence was imposed by a court in Karnataka. He added that the State is opposing the parole sought by the petitioner. He submitted that it is to be considered if parole can be granted at all, considering the fact that the Apex Court had directed that Shraddhanand cannot be released in his lifetime. He emphasised that in the present case the life sentence was granted as an alternative to the death penalty.

Senior Advocate, Sanjay Hegde appearing for the family of the victim informed the Bench that the petitioner is pressing for parole without making any application for the same. Padhi supplemented Hedge’s submission, “In the present case he had made an application for parole in 2010 on medical grounds. He has to make out a case today as to what is his need to go out on parole. First there has to be a factual foundation, on the basis of which the legal issue would be decided.” The Bench took note of the submission. Justice Joseph remarked, “...the best we can do is that we will not express any view and should an occasion present itself then it may be considered.”

Several applications were also filed, one of them seeking stay on streaming of a true-crime docuseries, ‘Dancing on the Grave’ on Amazon Prime. The docuseries pertains to the murder of Khaleeli. The Counsel appearing for the OTT Platform apprised the Bench that - “Documentary records his statement, makes no comment, and says that the matter with respect to remission is pending before the Supreme Court. It has interviews of several people, along with his interview and that of his defence lawyer. The interview was taken with his consent after he executed agreements.”

[Case Title: Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka WP(Crl) No. 66/2014]