Nagaland Civilian Killings: Supreme Court Closes FIR Against 30 Indian Army Personnel For Lack Of Sanctions Under AFSPA
The Supreme Court today (September 17) closed FIRs and set aside all proceedings against 30 21 PARA (Special Forces) personnel accused of allegedly killing civilians in Nagaland, given that the Union Ministry of Home Affairs declined to give sanctions to initiate criminal prosecution against them. It clarified that at any stage, if sanctions are granted to prosecute the personnel, then...
The Supreme Court today (September 17) closed FIRs and set aside all proceedings against 30 21 PARA (Special Forces) personnel accused of allegedly killing civilians in Nagaland, given that the Union Ministry of Home Affairs declined to give sanctions to initiate criminal prosecution against them. It clarified that at any stage, if sanctions are granted to prosecute the personnel, then the impugned FIRs may continue and may proceed per law and be brought to a logical conclusion.
On December 4, 2021, the Army personnel allegedly opened fire at a pick-van carrying coal miners in Mon district, Nagaland, mistaking them for insurgents. The incident flared up leading to more killings and also the killing of one of the Army personnel. In total, 13 civilians were killed.
A criminal prosecution was sought against them, which required sanctions from the MHA (competent authority) as required under Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958.
The present case arises out of two writ petitions filed by the wives of some Indian Army officers for quashing suo moto FIR registered by the Nagaland Police against the personnel including their husbands under Sections 302, 307, 326, 201, 34 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the findings and recommendations of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Nagaland police. The SIT was constituted pursuant to the incident.
On July 19, 2022, the Supreme Court passed an interim order staying further proceedings in this case since the requisite sanctions were not obtained. When the matter was taken up for hearing on March 7, this year, Additional Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhatti, informed the Court that the MHA had declined to issue sanctions to initiate criminal proceedings.
The Court today stated that it would refuse to go into the submissions made by parties considering that Section 6 of the AFSPA contains a bar against any prosecution, suit, or other legal proceedings except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
Therefore, it held: “The interim order, granted by the order dated 19.07.2022, deserves to be made absolute, and the proceedings arising from the impugned FIRs deserve to be quashed.”
However, the Court was informed by the Advocate General for the State of Nagaland, Mr. K.N. Balgopal that the correctness of the denial of sanction by the MHA has been challenged in a writ petition before the Supreme Court. Considering this, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and P.S. Varale stated: “We have no manner of doubt that, in case, if ultimately at some stage, sanction is granted under Section 6 of the AFSP Act, 1958, the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIRs are liable to be continued...The proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIRs shall remain closed. However, in case sanction is granted at any stage under Section 6 of the AFSP Act, 1958, the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIRs may continue and may proceed in accordance with law and be brought to a logical conclusion."
The Court has clarified that if at any stage of sanction being granted under Section 6 of AFSPA, the proceedings in the impugned FIRs would be revived.
Additionally, the Court refused to pass any directions sought by Balgopal in regard to disciplinary proceedings against the officers. It concluded: “The concerned wing of the Armed Forces would be at liberty to take or not to take any disciplinary proceedings against its officers.”
Case Details: Rabina Ghale & Anr v. UOI & Ors, WP (Crl) No. 265 of 2022 & Anjali Gupta v. UOI & Ors, WP (Crl) No. 250 of 2022
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 707