Irked by the Centre’s diametrically diverse views on Army and paramilitary
forces’ immunity from criminal prosecution in fake encounter killings,
the Supreme Court asked the government to spell out its position on the
controversial Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) and other laws.
“You cannot say that an Army man can enter any home commit a rape
and say he enjoys immunity as it has been done in discharge of official
duties,” the apex court remarked. The apex court made the remarks after
senior counsel Ashok Bhan, appearing for the Centre, voiced divergent
views on two separate encounter killings involving military personnel
in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam.
In the aftermath of 2000 Chattisinghpora massacre in Jammu and
Kashmir, when five youth were killed in an alleged fake encounter by
Rashtriya Rifles personnel at Pathribal in Anantnag, 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 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.
He urged the court to de-link the two issues and deal with them separately.
However, the Bench said since “the issue involved vital questions of
law relating to public”, the matter would be taken up for a detailed
hearing immediately after vacation. The court asked the government to
clearly spell out its stand on two issues: whether army and
paramilitary personnel enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for any
penal offence committed in discharge of their official duties including
fake encounters and rapes vis-à-vis AFSPA, Section 197 CrPC and Section
17 of the CRPF Act. SANA
