No excessive force against civilians, says Armed Forces Tribunal in J&K custodial-death case
The Armed Forces Tribunal has upheld the disciplinary action against a former Rashtriya Rifles sector commander over the December 2023 deaths of three civilians in custody in Jammu and Kashmir’s Poonch district, stressing that military personnel cannot use excessive force against civilians even under intense operational pressure.
The tribunal dismissed the plea filed by Brigadier Padmasambhava Acharya, who had challenged the “Severe Displeasure” censure issued against him in connection with the deaths at Dera Ki Gali.
The bench held that the use of excessive force during the subsequent counter-insurgency operations amounted to a failure of command and control.
“Excessive force was used in violation of the law,” the tribunal said, adding that the failure to prevent such force and issue clear directions was a direct consequence of the command failure.
The tribunal observed that soldiers operating after the deaths of their colleagues could naturally experience anger and a desire for revenge, but stressed that such emotions must remain subordinate to military discipline.
It said that even in difficult counter-insurgency situations, personnel are required to exercise restraint and follow established procedures for dealing with civilians.
Three civilians died during questioning
The case dates back to December 21, 2023, when an Army convoy was ambushed near Dera Ki Gali in Poonch, leaving four soldiers dead. Two of the soldiers were also found to have been mutilated.
Following the attack, security forces launched search operations and detained several local civilians for questioning as part of efforts to gather intelligence about those responsible.
Three of the civilians subsequently died from injuries sustained during interrogation at a Company Operating Base in Mastan Dhara.
A Court of Inquiry ordered by the Army’s 16 Corps examined the circumstances surrounding the deaths and recommended administrative action against Acharya, who was then commanding 13 Sector Rashtriya Rifles.
He was accused of failing to exercise adequate command and control, mishandling civilians and not preventing the use of excessive force during the operation.
Tribunal rejects command-sharing argument
Acharya had argued that senior officers, including the 16 Corps commander and the General Officer Commanding of counter-insurgency force Romeo, were present at the Dera Ki Gali control room and should therefore also have shared responsibility.
He had also questioned the disciplinary process, arguing that the corps commander had effectively acted as a judge in his own case.
The tribunal rejected the arguments and clarified the chain of command during field operations.
It held that responsibility for direct command and control of ground operations rests with the relevant commanding and sector officers. The presence of senior commanders at forward control rooms for situational awareness does not mean they exercise direct, tactical control over individual sub-unit operations or interrogations.
Censure will not remain on record
While upholding the disciplinary action, the tribunal directed authorities not to retain the censure in Acharya’s administrative record.
The tribunal referred to a Defence Ministry policy dated October 30, 2023, under which a “Severe Displeasure” issued by a corps commander remains operative for a maximum of two years.
The censure against Acharya was issued on July 8, 2024. Since the prescribed two-year period has now elapsed, the tribunal said the punishment was no longer operative and ordered that its record should not be maintained.
It made clear, however, that the direction was based solely on the circumstances of this particular case and should not be treated as a precedent.
‘Discipline must prevail’
The tribunal also referred to Supreme Court judgments while underlining the distinction between conventional warfare and internal-security operations.
It noted that Army guidelines prohibiting physical force and third-degree methods during interrogation are binding and must be followed strictly.
The ruling stressed that the loss of soldiers and the emotional circumstances surrounding an operation cannot justify violations of constitutional protections or human rights safeguards.
The tribunal said military discipline, constitutional requirements and respect for human rights must prevail even when troops are operating under severe emotional and operational pressure.
(With inputs from PTI)
