The Supreme Court of India, on September 17, 2024, quashed two FIRs registered against officers of the 21 PARA (Special Forces) Unit of the Indian Army. The Court ruled that no prosecution or legal proceedings could be initiated without prior sanction from the Central Government, as mandated under Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA). The judgment, delivered by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, emphasized that the FIRs and proceedings could not continue due to the absence of the mandatory sanction.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident on December 4, 2021, in Nagaland, where a firing by personnel of the 21 PARA (SF) unit resulted in the death of six individuals. The situation escalated, leading to further violence, including the death of an Army personnel. The incident prompted the registration of a Suo Moto FIR (State Crime Police Station Case No. 07/2021) by the local police, implicating several members of the Army unit, including the husbands of the petitioners, under Sections 302, 307, 326, 201, 34, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
The writ petitions were filed by the wives of the accused Army personnel, Rabina Ghale (W.P. No. 265/2022) and Anjali Gupta (W.P. No. 250/2022), seeking the quashing of the FIRs and related proceedings. They contended that the FIRs were arbitrary exercises of executive power targeting soldiers in the discharge of their bona fide duties, and that the legal actions against them violated the AFSPA.
Important Legal Issues Involved
1. Requirement of Sanction under AFSPA: The central issue was whether the proceedings could continue without obtaining prior sanction from the Central Government under Section 6 of the AFSPA, 1958. Section 6 states that no prosecution, suit, or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against any person acting in good faith under the powers conferred by the Act, except with the Central Government’s sanction.
2. Application of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): The petitioners also raised the issue that sanction was necessary under Section 197(2) of the Cr.P.C., which relates to cognizance of offenses by courts against public servants.
3. Validity of the SIT Report and Chargesheet: The Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted by the state authorities, recommended prosecuting the Army personnel, which the petitioners challenged as being beyond the SIT’s jurisdiction due to the lack of sanction under AFSPA.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from the Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Advocate General of Nagaland Mr. K.N. Balgopal, and other counsel, held that:
– Lack of Sanction: The Court highlighted the lack of mandatory sanction from the Central Government under Section 6 of AFSPA. The Additional Solicitor General informed that the competent authority had declined the sanction on February 28, 2023. The Court observed, “In the absence of a sanction under Section 6 of the AFSPA, 1958, the proceedings based on the impugned FIRs cannot continue.”
– Quashing of FIRs: The Court made the interim order, which had stayed further proceedings, absolute and quashed the FIRs. However, it clarified that should the Central Government grant sanction in the future, the proceedings could be revived.
– Independence of the Armed Forces: The Court refused to direct the Armed Forces to initiate or not initiate disciplinary proceedings, stating, “It would be at the sole discretion of the Armed Forces whether or not to carry on disciplinary proceedings against its officers.”
Case Details
– Case Title: Rabina Ghale & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (Criminal) No. 265/2022); Anjali Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (Criminal) No. 250/2022)
– Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
– Lawyers: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati (Additional Solicitor General), Mr. K.N. Balgopal (Advocate General for Nagaland), Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma (Advocate for the Union of India and Ministry of Defence)
