It is necessary to look at what was essentially an avoidable tragedy – at least the manner in which it transpired – to analyse the cause and the lessons democracy could learn from the death of an 84-year-old human rights pioneer.

Over a dozen activists, including Father Swamy, were arrested in connection with what is known as the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case, which, many allege, was based on trumped-up charges and manufactured evidence. The priest was arrested under an archaic anti-terror law for his alleged links to the banned CPI (Maoist) group.

There are even allegations that whatever sliver of proof that the investigators claimed to possess was planted. It might be next to the impossible to prove who perpetrated the act, and we may never know the truth. The others detained in the case, who, like the Jesuit priest, dedicated their lives to work for and among the ‘nobodies’, face the risk of meeting a similar, tragic end. There are three factors that need honest introspection and urgent deliberation to ensure that neither those detained, nor our constitutional democracy meets the same fate as Father Swamy. Firstly, as an immediate step, there is a requirement for scrutiny of all the cases charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). There must also be an informed dialogue on the UAPA itself, and not within the parameters of national security – the blanket increasingly used to cover up holes in terms of legality and even logic – but human rights, the foundation on which every other right is built upon.

This scrutiny was long overdue, much before Father Swamy’s death, considering only an abysmal two per cent of the cases end up in conviction (as per National Crime Records Bureau statistics), which is the clearest indication of how the Act is an inversion of the dictum of ensuring that not a single innocent man should be punished. Most important is perhaps the third factor. Over the years – certainly not limited to the current regime – we have witnessed how politicians in power have manipulated rules and laws to their advantage. So cynical have we become as a society that it is no more a surprise that the executive acts as tools, and even willing participants, in this blatant abuse of law. What should undoubtedly concern us, the citizens is the role played by the judiciary. Or, in this specific case, the role they desisted from playing.

There were enough indications that the case against these activists was flimsy at best. There were also serious questions pertaining to the integrity of evidence. If these were immaterial, there were concerns about the health condition of some of the activists. But none of this appeared important to the NIA special court or even the higher judiciary. That should worry us all, because, in the absence of an impartial referee, the rule of law would quickly deteriorate into rulers’ law.