Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand

Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Nov 5, 2011   modified Modified on Nov 5, 2011

-PTI

The Supreme Court Friday granted the Centre three weeks to spell out its stand on the extent of immunity enjoyed by Army personnel under the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and other laws for fake encounter killings.

The bench passed the direction on CBI's application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&K court relating to the killing of six youth by the Army after being branded as foreign militants in retaliation for killing of 36 members of the Sikh community by gunmen at Chattisinghpora in 2000.

A bench of justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar granted the time after Additional Solicitor General Parag Tripathi, appearing for the Army, said the issue was being "discussed at the highest level" and the matter would be resolved soon.

"We are conscious of the matter and want to strike a balance between civilians' rights and national security. The matter is being dealt at the highest level," the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.
 
Additional Solicitor General Harin Rawal and senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for CBI, argued the right of immunity provided under Section 197 CrPC was available to the accused.

But in this case, they said, the immunity was not sought by the accused officers but by senior army and law officers of the Defence Ministry, which was contrary to the law and hence immunity can be granted to the army personnel involved in the killings.

Interestingly, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which had found a prima facie case against the Army officers, has pleaded the Supreme Court to vacate the stay on the trial, being conducted by the Chef Judicial Magistrate of Srinagar. The civilians were shot five days after the killing of 35 Sikhs in Chattisinghpora village in Anantnag district on eve of the visit of then-US President Bill Clinton on March, 2000. CBI counsel Ashok Bhan had earlier told a two-judge bench that a prima facie case existed against Brigadier Ajay Saxena, Lt Col Brajendra Pratap Singh, Major Sourabh Sharma, Major Amit Saxena, Sudedar Idrees Khan and others.

The bench then told Tripathi "we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don't take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.”
 
The Army has said in its plea that their personnel seeking immunity under Sections 6 and 7 of the AFSPA, 1958, which has been rejected by lower courts as well as Jammu and Kashmir High Court. Last year, while admitting the special leave petition (SLP) against the High Court order, the apex court also stayed proceedings at the trial court.

The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.
 
At the last hearing, irked by the Centre's diametrically diverse views on army and paramilitary forces' immunity from criminal prosecution in fake encounter killings, the bench had asked the government to spell out its position on AFSPA and other laws.

"You cannot say that an army man can enter any home and commit a rape and say he enjoys immunity as it has been done in discharge of official duties," the apex court had remarked.

The apex court had made the remarks after senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the Centre, voiced divergent views on two separate encounter killings involving military personnel in J&K and Assam.

In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&K, where seven youth were killed in an alleged fake encounter by Rashtriya Rifles personnel, Bhan sought prosecution of the armymen whereas in a similar alleged fake encounter by CRPF men in Assam, the counsel said they enjoyed immunity.

"How can you adopt diametrically different views?" the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was "compulsions of his professional duties."

He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.

The court had then asked the government to clearly spell out its stand on two issues: whether army/paramilitary personnel enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for any penal offence committed in discharge of their official duties including fake encounters and rapes vis-a-vis AFSPA, Section 197 CrPC and Section 17 of the CRPF Act.

Last year, at the behest of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the Home Ministry had circulated a draft of amendments to the controversial law to the members of Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). Countering the Home Ministry proposal, the Defence Ministry circulated its own draft note opposing any changes.

Modelled on the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance, promulgated by the colonial British government on 15 August, 1942, to suppress the Quit India Movement, the AFSPA was initially supposed to have remained in operation for one year to tackle the Nagaland problem. Parliament enacted a fresh law Jammu and Kashmir Armed Forces Special Powers Act in September 1990 to cover Jammu and Kashmir incorporating clauses of Disturbed Areas Act also in the Section 3 of JKAFSPA.

Under Section 6 of this law, “No prosecution, suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of powers conferred by this Act.”

Greater Kashmir, 4 November, 2011, http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Nov/5/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-70.asp


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close