Summary of the Judgement
Case Name: Rabina Ghale & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors.Anjali Gupta vs Union of India & Ors.
Date: September 17, 2024
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon'ble Justice Vikram Nath, Hon'ble Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
Advocates: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati (Additional Solicitor General) Mr. K.N. Balgopal (Advocate General for Nagaland) Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma (Advocate on Record)
Acts and Sections Involved:
Section 6, Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958
Sections 302, 307, 326, 201, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 197(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Cited Judgements:
Vineet Dhanda vs Union of India & Ors.
Lt. Col. Karamveer Singh vs The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others
Introduction
The recent Supreme Court judgement, delivered on September 17, 2024, in the cases Rabina Ghale & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. and Anjali Gupta vs Union of India & Ors., addresses crucial issues concerning the prosecution of Army personnel under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA). The case involved writ petitions filed by the wives of Army officers challenging the suo motu FIR registered against their husbands and other personnel of the 21 PARA (Special Forces) unit. The incident at the heart of the case occurred in Nagaland in December 2021 and involved the death of civilians during an operation led by the Army, triggering legal proceedings against the Army officers.
Background of the Case
The petitions stem from an incident that occurred on December 4, 2021, when personnel of the 21 PARA (SF) unit were involved in an operation in Nagaland, leading to the death of six civilians. The event escalated into violent clashes, resulting in further fatalities, including that of a paratrooper, and severe injuries to the Army officers. The Nagaland Police initiated an investigation and filed an FIR against the Army personnel under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and 326 (causing grievous hurt). A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted to probe the matter.
The petitioners contended that the FIR and the subsequent investigation were unlawful, as the incident occurred during the Army's bona fide operations under the AFSPA, 1958, which grants immunity to armed forces personnel from prosecution unless prior sanction is obtained from the Central Government.
Legal Arguments
The primary issue before the Court was whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the Army officers could continue in the absence of sanction from the Central Government, as mandated by Section 6 of the AFSPA. The provision unequivocally states:
“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 the powers conferred by this Act.”
The learned Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, argued that the mandatory sanction under Section 6 of the AFSPA had not been obtained, and therefore, the proceedings could not continue. The learned Advocate General for Nagaland, Mr. K.N. Balgopal, however, contended that the refusal of sanction by the competent authority was under challenge in a separate writ petition filed by the State of Nagaland.
Court’s Observations
Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, while examining the case, emphasised the importance of the protection provided to armed forces under the AFSPA, especially in disturbed areas like Nagaland. The Court noted that the SIT’s findings could not override the statutory protection under Section 6 of the AFSPA. The Court observed:
“In view of the specific bar contained in Section 6 of the AFSP Act, 1958, which provides that no prosecution, suit, or other legal proceedings can be instituted except with the previous sanction of the Central Government... the proceedings based on the impugned FIRs cannot continue any further.”
The Court was of the view that the Army personnel were performing their duties as mandated by the Union of India and were entitled to the protections afforded under the AFSPA. In the absence of the required sanction, the proceedings were deemed unlawful and stayed.
Refusal of Sanction
The Court noted that the Central Government had refused to grant sanction for the prosecution of the Army officers, as communicated by the Additional Solicitor General. The refusal, dated February 28, 2023, was a critical factor in the Court’s decision. The Court remarked:
“In view of the admitted position that mandatory previous sanction as required under Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, has not been obtained, we are constrained to pass an interim order staying further proceedings.”
The refusal of sanction placed a significant roadblock for the prosecution, as the AFSPA’s provisions are designed to shield Army personnel from legal actions that arise out of their official duties in disturbed areas.
Interim and Final Orders
In an earlier interim order dated July 19, 2022, the Supreme Court had already stayed the proceedings stemming from the FIRs registered against the Army officers. This interim order was made absolute in the final judgement. The Court quashed the proceedings, effectively closing the matter, subject to the possibility that the Central Government might grant sanction in the future. The Court clarified:
“If at any stage sanction is granted under Section 6 of the AFSP Act, 1958, the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIRs may continue and may proceed in accordance with law.”
This observation leaves the door open for future legal action if the Central Government reverses its position and grants the necessary sanction for prosecution.
Implications for Future Prosecutions
This judgement reinforces the legal protections offered to armed forces personnel under the AFSPA. It underscores the fact that criminal proceedings against Army officers performing their duties in disturbed areas cannot proceed without prior approval from the Central Government. The case also highlights the delicate balance between maintaining law and order in conflict zones and ensuring that the armed forces are not hindered by legal actions stemming from their operations.
While the Court quashed the FIRs in this instance, it did not preclude the possibility of future prosecutions if sanction is granted. The judgement thus serves as a precedent for similar cases involving Army personnel operating in AFSPA-covered regions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Rabina Ghale & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. and Anjali Gupta vs Union of India & Ors. reaffirms the statutory protections offered to armed forces personnel under the AFSPA. By quashing the proceedings against the Army officers, the Court has underscored the need for strict adherence to the provisions of the AFSPA, particularly the requirement for prior sanction from the Central Government. This judgement is likely to have a lasting impact on the prosecution of armed forces personnel in conflict zones, ensuring that they are not subjected to legal proceedings for actions taken in the course of their official duties without the necessary procedural safeguards in place.
留言