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: 73
 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]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = '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: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

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: 74
 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]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = '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: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

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]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10908,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p&gt;
-PTI
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench passed the direction on CBI&#039;s application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;discussed at the highest level&amp;quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We are conscious of the matter and want to strike a balance between civilians&#039; rights and national security. The matter is being dealt at the highest level,&amp;quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench then told Tripathi &amp;quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don&#039;t take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
At the last hearing, irked by the Centre&#039;s diametrically diverse views on army and paramilitary forces&#039; immunity from criminal prosecution in fake encounter killings, the bench had asked the government to spell out its position on AFSPA and other laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; the apex court had remarked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;K and Assam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&amp;quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &amp;quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under Section 6 of this law, &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Greater Kashmir, 4 November, 2011, http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Nov/5/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-70.asp&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 11022,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10908,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA),AFSPA,Human Rights,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-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...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p&gt;-PTI&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench passed the direction on CBI&#039;s application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;quot;discussed at the highest level&amp;quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;We are conscious of the matter and want to strike a balance between civilians&#039; rights and national security. The matter is being dealt at the highest level,&amp;quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench then told Tripathi &amp;quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don&#039;t take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;At the last hearing, irked by the Centre&#039;s diametrically diverse views on army and paramilitary forces&#039; immunity from criminal prosecution in fake encounter killings, the bench had asked the government to spell out its position on AFSPA and other laws.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; the apex court had remarked.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&amp;amp;K and Assam.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&amp;quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &amp;quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under Section 6 of this law, &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10908,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p&gt;
-PTI
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench passed the direction on CBI&#039;s application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;discussed at the highest level&amp;quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We are conscious of the matter and want to strike a balance between civilians&#039; rights and national security. The matter is being dealt at the highest level,&amp;quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench then told Tripathi &amp;quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don&#039;t take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
At the last hearing, irked by the Centre&#039;s diametrically diverse views on army and paramilitary forces&#039; immunity from criminal prosecution in fake encounter killings, the bench had asked the government to spell out its position on AFSPA and other laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; the apex court had remarked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;K and Assam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&amp;quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &amp;quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under Section 6 of this law, &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Greater Kashmir, 4 November, 2011, http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Nov/5/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-70.asp&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 11022,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 10908
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA),AFSPA,Human Rights,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-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...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;p&gt;-PTI&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench passed the direction on CBI&#039;s application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;quot;discussed at the highest level&amp;quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;We are conscious of the matter and want to strike a balance between civilians&#039; rights and national security. The matter is being dealt at the highest level,&amp;quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench then told Tripathi &amp;quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don&#039;t take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;At the last hearing, irked by the Centre&#039;s diametrically diverse views on army and paramilitary forces&#039; immunity from criminal prosecution in fake encounter killings, the bench had asked the government to spell out its position on AFSPA and other laws.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; the apex court had remarked.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&amp;amp;K and Assam.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&amp;quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &amp;quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under Section 6 of this law, &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-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..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <p>-PTI</p><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />The bench passed the direction on CBI's application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;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.<br /><br />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 &quot;discussed at the highest level&quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.<br /><br />&quot;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,&quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The bench then told Tripathi &quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don't take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&rdquo;<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />&quot;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,&quot; the apex court had remarked.<br /><br />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&amp;K and Assam.<br /><br />In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;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.<br /><br />&quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&quot;<br /><br />He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Under Section 6 of this law, &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

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]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10908,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p&gt;
-PTI
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench passed the direction on CBI&#039;s application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;discussed at the highest level&amp;quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We are conscious of the matter and want to strike a balance between civilians&#039; rights and national security. The matter is being dealt at the highest level,&amp;quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench then told Tripathi &amp;quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don&#039;t take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
At the last hearing, irked by the Centre&#039;s diametrically diverse views on army and paramilitary forces&#039; immunity from criminal prosecution in fake encounter killings, the bench had asked the government to spell out its position on AFSPA and other laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; the apex court had remarked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;K and Assam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&amp;quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &amp;quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under Section 6 of this law, &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Greater Kashmir, 4 November, 2011, http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Nov/5/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-70.asp&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 11022,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10908,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA),AFSPA,Human Rights,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-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...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p&gt;-PTI&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench passed the direction on CBI&#039;s application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;quot;discussed at the highest level&amp;quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;We are conscious of the matter and want to strike a balance between civilians&#039; rights and national security. The matter is being dealt at the highest level,&amp;quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench then told Tripathi &amp;quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don&#039;t take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;At the last hearing, irked by the Centre&#039;s diametrically diverse views on army and paramilitary forces&#039; immunity from criminal prosecution in fake encounter killings, the bench had asked the government to spell out its position on AFSPA and other laws.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; the apex court had remarked.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&amp;amp;K and Assam.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&amp;quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &amp;quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under Section 6 of this law, &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10908,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p&gt;
-PTI
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench passed the direction on CBI&#039;s application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;discussed at the highest level&amp;quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We are conscious of the matter and want to strike a balance between civilians&#039; rights and national security. The matter is being dealt at the highest level,&amp;quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench then told Tripathi &amp;quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don&#039;t take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
At the last hearing, irked by the Centre&#039;s diametrically diverse views on army and paramilitary forces&#039; immunity from criminal prosecution in fake encounter killings, the bench had asked the government to spell out its position on AFSPA and other laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; the apex court had remarked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;K and Assam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&amp;quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &amp;quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under Section 6 of this law, &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Greater Kashmir, 4 November, 2011, http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Nov/5/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-70.asp&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 11022,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 10908
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA),AFSPA,Human Rights,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-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...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;p&gt;-PTI&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench passed the direction on CBI&#039;s application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;quot;discussed at the highest level&amp;quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;We are conscious of the matter and want to strike a balance between civilians&#039; rights and national security. The matter is being dealt at the highest level,&amp;quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench then told Tripathi &amp;quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don&#039;t take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;At the last hearing, irked by the Centre&#039;s diametrically diverse views on army and paramilitary forces&#039; immunity from criminal prosecution in fake encounter killings, the bench had asked the government to spell out its position on AFSPA and other laws.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; the apex court had remarked.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&amp;amp;K and Assam.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&amp;quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &amp;quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under Section 6 of this law, &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-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..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <p>-PTI</p><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />The bench passed the direction on CBI's application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;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.<br /><br />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 &quot;discussed at the highest level&quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.<br /><br />&quot;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,&quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The bench then told Tripathi &quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don't take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&rdquo;<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />&quot;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,&quot; the apex court had remarked.<br /><br />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&amp;K and Assam.<br /><br />In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;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.<br /><br />&quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&quot;<br /><br />He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Under Section 6 of this law, &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

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]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f7e08a370a2-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10908,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p&gt;
-PTI
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench passed the direction on CBI&#039;s application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;discussed at the highest level&amp;quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We are conscious of the matter and want to strike a balance between civilians&#039; rights and national security. The matter is being dealt at the highest level,&amp;quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench then told Tripathi &amp;quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don&#039;t take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
At the last hearing, irked by the Centre&#039;s diametrically diverse views on army and paramilitary forces&#039; immunity from criminal prosecution in fake encounter killings, the bench had asked the government to spell out its position on AFSPA and other laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; the apex court had remarked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;K and Assam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&amp;quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &amp;quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under Section 6 of this law, &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Greater Kashmir, 4 November, 2011, http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Nov/5/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-70.asp&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 11022,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10908,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA),AFSPA,Human Rights,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-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...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p&gt;-PTI&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench passed the direction on CBI&#039;s application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;quot;discussed at the highest level&amp;quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;We are conscious of the matter and want to strike a balance between civilians&#039; rights and national security. The matter is being dealt at the highest level,&amp;quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench then told Tripathi &amp;quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don&#039;t take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;At the last hearing, irked by the Centre&#039;s diametrically diverse views on army and paramilitary forces&#039; immunity from criminal prosecution in fake encounter killings, the bench had asked the government to spell out its position on AFSPA and other laws.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; the apex court had remarked.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&amp;amp;K and Assam.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&amp;quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &amp;quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under Section 6 of this law, &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10908,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p&gt;
-PTI
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench passed the direction on CBI&#039;s application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;discussed at the highest level&amp;quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We are conscious of the matter and want to strike a balance between civilians&#039; rights and national security. The matter is being dealt at the highest level,&amp;quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bench then told Tripathi &amp;quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don&#039;t take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
At the last hearing, irked by the Centre&#039;s diametrically diverse views on army and paramilitary forces&#039; immunity from criminal prosecution in fake encounter killings, the bench had asked the government to spell out its position on AFSPA and other laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; the apex court had remarked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;K and Assam.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&amp;quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &amp;quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under Section 6 of this law, &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Greater Kashmir, 4 November, 2011, http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Nov/5/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-70.asp&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 11022,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 10908
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA),AFSPA,Human Rights,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-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...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;p&gt;-PTI&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench passed the direction on CBI&#039;s application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;quot;discussed at the highest level&amp;quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;We are conscious of the matter and want to strike a balance between civilians&#039; rights and national security. The matter is being dealt at the highest level,&amp;quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The bench then told Tripathi &amp;quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don&#039;t take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;At the last hearing, irked by the Centre&#039;s diametrically diverse views on army and paramilitary forces&#039; immunity from criminal prosecution in fake encounter killings, the bench had asked the government to spell out its position on AFSPA and other laws.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; the apex court had remarked.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&amp;amp;K and Assam.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;amp;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&amp;quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &amp;quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under Section 6 of this law, &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-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..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <p>-PTI</p><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />The bench passed the direction on CBI's application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;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.<br /><br />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 &quot;discussed at the highest level&quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.<br /><br />&quot;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,&quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The bench then told Tripathi &quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don't take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&rdquo;<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />&quot;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,&quot; the apex court had remarked.<br /><br />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&amp;K and Assam.<br /><br />In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;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.<br /><br />&quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&quot;<br /><br />He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Under Section 6 of this law, &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 10908,
		'title' => 'Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<p>
-PTI
</p>
<div align="justify">
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.<br />
<br />
The bench passed the direction on CBI's application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;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.<br />
<br />
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 &quot;discussed at the highest level&quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.<br />
<br />
&quot;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,&quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.<br />
</div>
<div align="justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div align="justify">
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The bench then told Tripathi &quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don't take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&rdquo;<br />
</div>
<div align="justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div align="justify">
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.<br />
<br />
The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.<br />
</div>
<div align="justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div align="justify">
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.<br />
<br />
&quot;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,&quot; the apex court had remarked.<br />
<br />
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&amp;K and Assam.<br />
<br />
In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;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.<br />
<br />
&quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&quot;<br />
<br />
He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Under Section 6 of this law, &ldquo;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.&rdquo;
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'Greater Kashmir, 4 November, 2011, http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Nov/5/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-70.asp',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 11022,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 10908,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA),AFSPA,Human Rights,Law and Justice',
	'metaDesc' => '
-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...',
	'disp' => '<p>-PTI</p><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />The bench passed the direction on CBI's application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;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.<br /><br />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 &quot;discussed at the highest level&quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.<br /><br />&quot;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,&quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The bench then told Tripathi &quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don't take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&rdquo;<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />&quot;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,&quot; the apex court had remarked.<br /><br />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&amp;K and Assam.<br /><br />In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;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.<br /><br />&quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&quot;<br /><br />He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Under Section 6 of this law, &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 10908,
	'title' => 'Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<p>
-PTI
</p>
<div align="justify">
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.<br />
<br />
The bench passed the direction on CBI's application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;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.<br />
<br />
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 &quot;discussed at the highest level&quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.<br />
<br />
&quot;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,&quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.<br />
</div>
<div align="justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div align="justify">
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The bench then told Tripathi &quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don't take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&rdquo;<br />
</div>
<div align="justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div align="justify">
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.<br />
<br />
The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.<br />
</div>
<div align="justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div align="justify">
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.<br />
<br />
&quot;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,&quot; the apex court had remarked.<br />
<br />
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&amp;K and Assam.<br />
<br />
In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;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.<br />
<br />
&quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&quot;<br />
<br />
He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Under Section 6 of this law, &ldquo;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.&rdquo;
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'Greater Kashmir, 4 November, 2011, http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Nov/5/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-70.asp',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'supreme-court-asks-centre-to-clear-stand-11022',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 11022,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 10908
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand'
$metaKeywords = 'Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA),AFSPA,Human Rights,Law and Justice'
$metaDesc = '
-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...'
$disp = '<p>-PTI</p><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />The bench passed the direction on CBI's application for vacating the stay granted by the apex court on the trial in a J&amp;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.<br /><br />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 &quot;discussed at the highest level&quot; and the matter would be resolved soon.<br /><br />&quot;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,&quot; the ASG told the bench while seeking adjournment of the case.<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The bench then told Tripathi &quot;we appreciate your concern but we need to hear the matter. If you don't take a decision, we will proceed with the matter.&rdquo;<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />The Apex Court adjourned the matter to December 16.<br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br />&quot;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,&quot; the apex court had remarked.<br /><br />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&amp;K and Assam.<br /><br />In 2000 Chattisinghpora killing in J&amp;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.<br /><br />&quot;How can you adopt diametrically different views?&quot; the bench had said, to which Bhan admitted it was &quot;compulsions of his professional duties.&quot;<br /><br />He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Under Section 6 of this law, &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Supreme Court asks Centre to clear stand

-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.”