LOGICAL BOSSS
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2016
- Messages
- 521
- Reaction score
- -17
- Country
- Location
Published April 13, 2017
SOURCE: TNN
The Centre made a forceful attempt on Wednesday for dilution of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment making registration of FIRs mandatory for encounter deaths during counter-insurgency operations by armed forces, even in disturbed areas under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).
In an order on July 8, 2016, the SC had negated the protection against prosecution available to armed forces personnel under AFSPA. “If the position maintained by the impugned order continues, it may, one day, be well-nigh impossible to maintain peace and security,” the Centre said. Its strong pitch acquires significance in the context of a surge in violence in J&K and the Army chief ‘s warning that stone-pelters obstructing anti-insurgency operations will be treated as terrorists themselves.
Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi said, “The Indian Army has to, in given circumstances, take quick decisions which cannot be dissected later on like an ordinary murder appeal. In other words, the scope of judicial review against active military operations cannot be on the same parameters as in other situations. Therefore, action taken by Army during operations cannot be put to judicial scrutiny.”
The AG’s argument was a powerful illustration of the “tough” stand that the Centre has pursued in dealing with secessionist violence in AFSPA areas, especially in J&K.
It also marked a defiance of the view that AFSPA, with its guarantee of legal immunity, could encourage excesses, with the AG bluntly saying the Army needed to use full force when faced with insurgents armed with sophisticated weaponry. With a very slim chance of getting the judgment diluted in favour of the armed forces, the Centre engaged Rohatgi to drive home the apprehension of armed forces through a curative petition.
Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that in a combat operation against militants and insurgents, who were armed with weapons, Army personnel needed to deal with full force.But if an Army personnel remained apprehensive about using force fearing a militant’s death as that could lead to registration of FIR against him, it would be difficult to win the battle against insurgents and militants, who aim to secede territories from India, the Centre said in its curative petition filed through advocate R Balasubramanian.
A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar told the AG, “You cannot expand this petition to make the court deal with it again on merit.”
The AFSPA, enforced in disturbed areas of some northeastern states and J&K, provides immunity to armymen from inquiry by police for alleged deaths and excesses caused during operations against insurgents and militants.
Aware of the slender chance of succeeding in a curative petition, the AG said, “It is an extremely important petition not only for armed forces’ personnel which face extreme danger to their lives during every counter-insurgency operation, but also equally important for the security and sovereignty of the country.”
He said the Army was sensitive to human rights and was not seeking immunity from inquiry by military authorities into complaints of excesses. “Empirical data as compiled from Manipur by the petitioner itself proves the point — 18,670 (90%) insurgents have been apprehended by security forces from 1990 to 2015 as compared to 1,881 (10%) insurgents/terrorists who have died in encounters,” he added.
During the same period, Army and Assam Rifles lost 928 personnel to insurgents and 1,463 more were injured during counter-insurgency operations in Manipur alone. “The members of the armed forces need to be given the requisite measure of protection… The law will always attach importance to the protection of their life, physical safety and personal liberty,” the Centre said.
SOURCE: TNN
The Centre made a forceful attempt on Wednesday for dilution of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment making registration of FIRs mandatory for encounter deaths during counter-insurgency operations by armed forces, even in disturbed areas under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).
In an order on July 8, 2016, the SC had negated the protection against prosecution available to armed forces personnel under AFSPA. “If the position maintained by the impugned order continues, it may, one day, be well-nigh impossible to maintain peace and security,” the Centre said. Its strong pitch acquires significance in the context of a surge in violence in J&K and the Army chief ‘s warning that stone-pelters obstructing anti-insurgency operations will be treated as terrorists themselves.
Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi said, “The Indian Army has to, in given circumstances, take quick decisions which cannot be dissected later on like an ordinary murder appeal. In other words, the scope of judicial review against active military operations cannot be on the same parameters as in other situations. Therefore, action taken by Army during operations cannot be put to judicial scrutiny.”
The AG’s argument was a powerful illustration of the “tough” stand that the Centre has pursued in dealing with secessionist violence in AFSPA areas, especially in J&K.
It also marked a defiance of the view that AFSPA, with its guarantee of legal immunity, could encourage excesses, with the AG bluntly saying the Army needed to use full force when faced with insurgents armed with sophisticated weaponry. With a very slim chance of getting the judgment diluted in favour of the armed forces, the Centre engaged Rohatgi to drive home the apprehension of armed forces through a curative petition.
Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that in a combat operation against militants and insurgents, who were armed with weapons, Army personnel needed to deal with full force.But if an Army personnel remained apprehensive about using force fearing a militant’s death as that could lead to registration of FIR against him, it would be difficult to win the battle against insurgents and militants, who aim to secede territories from India, the Centre said in its curative petition filed through advocate R Balasubramanian.
A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar told the AG, “You cannot expand this petition to make the court deal with it again on merit.”
The AFSPA, enforced in disturbed areas of some northeastern states and J&K, provides immunity to armymen from inquiry by police for alleged deaths and excesses caused during operations against insurgents and militants.
Aware of the slender chance of succeeding in a curative petition, the AG said, “It is an extremely important petition not only for armed forces’ personnel which face extreme danger to their lives during every counter-insurgency operation, but also equally important for the security and sovereignty of the country.”
He said the Army was sensitive to human rights and was not seeking immunity from inquiry by military authorities into complaints of excesses. “Empirical data as compiled from Manipur by the petitioner itself proves the point — 18,670 (90%) insurgents have been apprehended by security forces from 1990 to 2015 as compared to 1,881 (10%) insurgents/terrorists who have died in encounters,” he added.
During the same period, Army and Assam Rifles lost 928 personnel to insurgents and 1,463 more were injured during counter-insurgency operations in Manipur alone. “The members of the armed forces need to be given the requisite measure of protection… The law will always attach importance to the protection of their life, physical safety and personal liberty,” the Centre said.
