English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Supreme Court rejects pleas of army men against FIRs in encounter deaths

Published

on

supreme-court

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Supreme Court has rejected pleas from over 750 army personnel challenging its decision in July 2016 diluting the protection from prosecution, under Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in disturbed areas, for alleged fake encounters.

The court said the Act must not give officers the right to use “excessive or retaliatory” force.

Hearing the matter on Friday, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and UU Lalit said, “We are aware of the difficult situation faced by soldiers in disturbed areas. That is why we repeatedly asked the Attorney General on action taken on complaints of fake encounters for the past 15-20 years. When we found nothing has been done, we handed over the investigation to CBI in only those cases where a prima facie finding on possible fake encounters had been recorded by high court, judicial commission, Justice Santosh Hegde Commission or NHRC.”

The court said the Army had the option of opting for a court of inquiry even as there were several cases where the Gauhati high court granted compensation and Manipur paid, indicating the possibility of fake encounter, reported The Times of India (TOI).

The apex court clarified that protection under AFSPA would be available to soldiers for every genuine encounter.

The Supreme Court in its July 8, 2016, and July 14, 2017, judgments ordered registration of FIRs in nearly 100 of the 1,528 cases of alleged extra-judicial killings by Manipur police and the Army during 1985-2010.

In July 2016, the top court asked for a thorough probe into the alleged killings in Manipur and held that “excessive or retaliatory” force by the armed forces was not permissible under AFSPA, said a report in The Hindustan Times (HT). It also noted that democracy would be in grave danger if citizens were killed merely on suspicions.

In 2017, the top court ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation into 97 alleged cases of extrajudicial killings by the Indian Army, Assam Rifles and the Manipur Police in insurgency-hit Manipur, the HT report noted.

In August this year, while seeking an update on the CBI probe, the bench hit out at the agency for not arresting the officers in murder cases, commenting that CBI was letting “murderers” roam free. It was this comment that provoked the filing of the petitions by the soldiers.

The petitioners argued that the verdict, given in a Manipur fake encounter killing case, put the lives of security officers at risk and exposed them to criminal prosecution for carrying out counter-insurgency operations.

The Centre, too, came out in support of the officers, arguing that the verdict has had a “demoralising” effect on soldiers fighting terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. In its submission, the Centre said that armed forces were operating in an “altogether different situation” in disturbed areas, and a balance has to be struck.

Representing the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “We cannot shut our eyes to the unusual situation faced by soldiers in disturbed areas. Their hands must not shake while fighting terror. At the same time, a balance needs to be struck to ensure that a soldier does not become trigger happy. Let there be a debate on the issue of striking a balance. Till then, the investigations order by the SC need to be stalled. We cannot demoralise our armed forces.”

The court responded, “Who has stopped you from coming out with a mechanism to strike a balance? Why does it require our intervention? These are issues you (the Centre) need to decide, not the courts. We are not stopping you from debating. You can debate and find out a mechanism for striking a balance between armed forces’ operations against extremists and protecting the rights of innocent. When there is a loss of life, even in an encounter, should not the human life demand that it should be looked into and investigation should be done?”

Advocate Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the soldiers from the army, told the bench that the plea should be heard along with the main matter, which relates to alleged extrajudicial killings in Manipur, the HT reported. But the bench disagreed with her contention and said the two issues were separate.

Bhati contended the directions in the Manipur encounter case on AFSPA were contrary to an earlier verdict of the top court. The bench, however, retorted that the judges were forced to pass orders because the Centre had failed to give an assurance that action would be taken against members of armed forces.

“If no action is taken at all by the authorities under the Army Act, you cannot say that no investigation can go on,” the bench said.

Bhati clarified the petitioners were not asking for complete immunity but protection as they were facing “proxy war” in AFSPA areas.

“Today, we are not giving any clean chit to either side,” the court remarked, adding that CBI’s final investigation report would be subject to a court’s scrutiny, according to the HT report.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Rahul Gandhi, Centre clash over Ladakh deepens as eight Congress MPs suspended

The Lok Sabha saw repeated disruptions after Rahul Gandhi was denied permission to speak on the Ladakh issue, leading to protests and the suspension of eight Congress MPs.

Published

on

Chaos engulfed the Lok Sabha on Tuesday as tensions between the opposition and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party intensified over Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s attempt to raise the issue of the India-China military standoff in Ladakh. The disruption eventually led to the suspension of eight Congress MPs for the remainder of the parliamentary session.

The confrontation unfolded after the Leader of the Opposition tried, for the second consecutive day, to read out excerpts from an unpublished book by former Army chief General M.M. Naravane that refer to the 2020 Ladakh crisis. The Speaker denied permission, citing procedural rules, triggering protests from opposition members.

Several MPs protested by refusing to speak when called upon, expressing solidarity with Gandhi. The uproar forced repeated adjournments of the House and, according to reports, involved members throwing pieces of paper towards the Chair.

Following the disorder, eight Congress MPs — including Hibi Eden, Amarinder Raja Warring and Manickam Tagor — were suspended. Warring later questioned the action, saying the protests were in response to Gandhi being denied the opportunity to speak despite having authenticated the document and submitted it to the House.

The BJP strongly criticised the Congress leadership. Party MP Anurag Thakur accused Rahul Gandhi of undermining Parliament and insulting the armed forces, alleging that the opposition was attempting to distract from recent government actions, including the presentation of the Union Budget. He also said the BJP would move a formal complaint seeking strict action against the suspended MPs.

Outside Parliament, Gandhi accused the ruling party of trying to silence him, saying he was prevented from speaking on the sensitive issue of the India-China border. He argued that he had followed procedure by authenticating the content he wished to quote but was still denied permission.

What happened a day earlier

On Monday, the Speaker had also disallowed Gandhi from reading the excerpts, with senior ministers countering his remarks during the debate. Government sources later maintained that the Congress leader violated House rules by attempting to introduce unpublished material into the official record without prior approval.

When proceedings resumed on Tuesday, Gandhi again raised the matter, insisting that the information had been authenticated. As the Speaker moved on to other members, two opposition MPs from the Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress declined to speak, signalling their support for him.

Rahul Gandhi targets India-US trade deal

Separately, Gandhi also criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi over what he described as a lack of transparency surrounding the India-US trade deal. He questioned how negotiations that had reportedly remained unresolved for months were concluded overnight and alleged that the agreement compromised the interests of Indian farmers, particularly in agriculture and dairy.

Government sources, however, rejected these claims, stating that sensitive sectors would remain protected and that the deal does not undermine farmers’ interests. They said contentious issues, including market access, had been carefully handled.

The opposition has demanded full disclosure of the terms of the agreement, even as both sides continue to trade sharp political accusations inside and outside Parliament.

Continue Reading

India News

Mamata Banerjee alleges mass voter deletions in Bengal, targets Election Commission

Mamata Banerjee has accused the Election Commission of deleting thousands of voter names without due process, raising questions over the timing of the exercise ahead of elections.

Published

on

Mamata Banerjee

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Monday intensified her attack on the Election Commission over voter roll revisions, alleging that a large number of names have been deleted without due process as the state heads towards elections.

Addressing party workers, Banerjee claimed that 40,000 voters’ names were removed from her constituency alone, alleging that the deletions were carried out unilaterally and without giving voters a chance to be heard.

“In my constituency they have deleted 40,000 voters’ names unilaterally… Even a murderer gets a chance to defend himself,” she said.

Allegations against election officials

The chief minister directly accused an election official, alleging political bias and irregular conduct in the revision process. She claimed that voter names were being removed while officials sat in Election Commission offices, calling the process illegal.

“They cannot do it, it is illegal. 58 lakh names have been unilaterally deleted,” she said, echoing claims earlier made by Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee.

Banerjee also alleged that individuals described as “micro-observers” had been appointed illegally, claiming they had no role under the Representation of the People Act and were linked to the BJP.

‘Alive but marked dead’

In a dramatic moment during her address, the chief minister asked those present who had been marked as deceased in the voter lists to raise their hands.

“See, they are alive but as per the Election Commission they are dead,” she said.

She further alleged that names were being deleted under the category of “logical discrepancy,” adding that even noted economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen had earlier been questioned regarding the age of his mother.

Questions over timing of voter roll exercise

While stating that she did not oppose the Special Intensive Revision process in principle, Banerjee questioned the timing of the exercise.

“I have no problem with SIR, but why do it on the eve of elections? Why not after elections?” she asked.

Reiterating confidence in her party’s organisational strength, the chief minister said she was prepared to fight the issue politically and democratically.

Continue Reading

India News

Supreme Court raps Meta over WhatsApp privacy policy

The Supreme Court warned Meta that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy while hearing a case related to WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy and a CCI penalty.

Published

on

WhatsApp

The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered strong observations against Meta, the parent company of WhatsApp, over the messaging platform’s 2021 privacy policy, warning that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya said the court would not allow the sharing of user data in a manner that exploits Indians, remarking that privacy protections under the Constitution must be followed. “You can’t play with privacy… we will not allow you to share a single digit of our data,” the Chief Justice said during the hearing.

The matter relates to a plea challenging the law tribunal’s decision that upheld a ₹213 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on WhatsApp, while also permitting certain data-sharing practices for advertising purposes.

Court questions accessibility of privacy policy

During the hearing, the court raised concerns about whether WhatsApp’s privacy policy could realistically be understood by large sections of the population, particularly those who are poor or not formally educated.

The bench questioned if users such as roadside vendors, rural residents, or people who do not speak English would be able to comprehend the policy’s terms. It also expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of opt-out clauses, stating that even legally trained individuals find such policies difficult to understand.

Describing the alleged data practices as potentially exploitative, the court said it would not allow private information to be taken without genuine and informed consent from users.

The Chief Justice also cited a personal example, suggesting that users often begin seeing advertisements shortly after exchanging sensitive messages on WhatsApp, such as medical conversations, raising questions about how user data is being utilised.

Arguments from government and Meta

Appearing for the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticised WhatsApp’s data-sharing practices, calling them exploitative and commercially driven. In response, the Chief Justice said that if companies cannot operate in line with constitutional values, they should not do business in India.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Akhil Sibal, appearing for Meta and WhatsApp, countered the allegations by asserting that all WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted and that the company cannot read message content.

Background of the case

In November 2024, the CCI ruled against WhatsApp over its 2021 privacy policy, holding that the company had abused its dominant market position by effectively forcing users to accept the updated terms.

The watchdog objected to WhatsApp making continued access to messaging services conditional on permitting data-sharing with other Meta platforms, leading to the imposition of a ₹213 crore fine. Meta has deposited the penalty.

In January 2025, Meta and WhatsApp challenged the CCI order. Later, in November 2025, the law tribunal lifted a five-year restriction on data-sharing while maintaining the financial penalty.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com