The Supreme Court on Friday held that the Army cannot be justified to use excessive force in an area declared “disturbed” under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act.
Examining a petition by association of families who had lost their kin in a spree of extra judicial killings in Manipur, the Bench of Justices Madan B lokur and UU lalit set out to examine the truth behind 1,528 instances of such killings. It ordered the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to assist the amicus curiae Menaka Guruswamy in tabulating information about each case.
The compilation will indicate whether in each case a judicial enquiry or an enquiry by the NHRC or an enquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 has been held and the result of the enquiry and whether any First Information Report or complaint or petition has been filed by the next of kin of the deceased. The matter will be taken up for hearing next after four weeks. It would only be then the Court will examine the prayers of the petitioners to recommend a probe by either a special investigation team or CBI into the alleged killings.
The Court said there was no justification for the Army to kill citizens of the country by treating them as “enemy” of the State. The Bench said, “If members of our armed forces are deployed and employed to kill citizens of our country on the mere allegation or suspicion that they are ‘enemy’ not only the rule of law but our democracy would be in grave danger.”
The Centre had argued before the Court that terrorism had been raising its ugly head over past five decades for which reason Manipur has continued to be declared a “disturbed area” under AFSPA. Any curb on Army action would be demoralising to the armed forces, argued Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi.
But the Bench examined from the aspect of victims and said, “To contend that this would have a deleterious and demoralising impact on the security forces is certainly one way of looking at it, but from the point of view of a citizen, living under the shadow of a gun that can be wielded with impunity, outright acceptance of the proposition advanced is equally unsettling and demoralising, particularly in a constitutional democracy like ours.”