Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court quashed the FIRs filed against the personnel of 21 PARA (SF), Indian Army, involved in the incident that occurred on December 4, 2021, in Nagaland. The Court held that in the absence of the required sanction under Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA), the proceedings could not continue. However, it allowed for the possibility of the proceedings being revived if the necessary sanction is granted in the future.
Facts:
The writ petitions were filed by Rabina Ghale and Anjali Gupta, wives of officers in the Indian Army, seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against their husbands and other army personnel. The FIR pertained to an incident on December 4, 2021, in Nagaland, where military personnel, while conducting operations, engaged in a firing incident that resulted in multiple civilian deaths. This led to a violent escalation, causing further casualties, including the death of an army soldier.
The personnel of 21 PARA (SF) were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and 120B (criminal conspiracy). The petitioners argued that the personnel were acting within their duties under the AFSPA and should not be subjected to prosecution without the prior sanction of the Central Government, as mandated by Section 6 of the AFSPA.
Issues:
- Whether the FIRs against the army personnel could proceed in the absence of sanction under Section 6 of the AFSPA.
- Whether the state’s actions amounted to harassment of soldiers performing their bona fide duties.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioners argued that the FIR was unjustified as the army personnel were carrying out their duties under the AFSPA, which provides protection against prosecution without prior sanction from the Central Government. They claimed that the prosecution of the personnel without such sanction violated the legal protections afforded under the Act.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The State of Nagaland, represented by the Advocate General, argued that the FIR should not be quashed. It was stated that the state had challenged the denial of sanction by the competent authority and had filed a writ petition to overturn that decision. They requested that the court allow time for the adjudication of this challenge, arguing that if the sanction were granted, the proceedings under the FIR should be allowed to continue.
Analysis of the Law:
The legal issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 6 of the AFSPA, which requires prior sanction from the Central Government before any legal proceedings can be initiated against personnel operating under the Act. The court analyzed whether the absence of such sanction invalidated the proceedings under the impugned FIRs.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to previous cases, including Vineet Dhanda vs. Union of India and Lt. Col. Karamveer Singh vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others, where similar writ petitions had been filed by family members of army officers. In those cases, the court had also stayed proceedings in the absence of sanction under the AFSPA.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court emphasized that Section 6 of the AFSPA provides a clear legal bar to the prosecution of army personnel without prior sanction. Since the competent authority had denied the sanction required under the Act, the proceedings based on the impugned FIRs could not legally continue. The court noted that it had previously stayed the proceedings, and in light of the denial of sanction, the stay order deserved to be made absolute.
The court also clarified that if, in the future, the State of Nagaland’s challenge to the denial of sanction were successful and sanction were granted, the FIR proceedings could be revived and proceed according to law.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the FIRs and all proceedings emanating from them. However, it left the door open for the revival of these proceedings if sanction under Section 6 of the AFSPA is granted at any future date.
