Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has issued notices to reconsider the life imprisonment sentence of Swami Shraddhanand.
- Swami Shraddhanand claims that the sentence imposed on him is worse than a death sentence and has denied him the right to apply for parole and furlough.
- The case has raised questions about the fairness of the criminal justice system and the treatment of convicts.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka governments to file their replies on a review petition filed by Swami Shraddhanand alias Murali Manohar Mishra, seeking reconsideration of a judgment which sentenced him to life imprisonment for murdering his wife Shakereh Khaleeli.
The 84-yr-old self-styled godman has been in jail for about 30 years and claims that he is suffering from health issues.
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan, also condoned the delay of about 12 years in filing of the review petition taking into account the factum of Shraddhanand’s incarceration.
The trial court pronounced a death sentence on the godman, which was also upheld by the High Court.
However, the Supreme Court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment in 2008, which means the godman will serve a life sentence until his death. This order was of imprisonment until death (without remission).
Counsel appearing for Shraddhanand argued that the sentence imposed on him was in some terms worse than a death sentence, considering it precluded him from seeing the light of day until his death.
Claiming that nothing adverse had been reported against Shraddhanand since his sentencing, the counsel said he had won 5 best qaidi (prisoner) awards,
The counsel argued that the sentence imposed took away Shraddhanand’s right as a convict to apply for parole and furlough under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Section 432 CrPC,
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing on behalf of one of the daughters of the deceased, objected to the prayers and arguments made on behalf of Shraddhanand.
After hearing the matter at length, the bench issued notice and asked governments of Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka to file their replies.
