India News

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

Published

8 years ago

December 1, 2018

[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]

Up Next

DAC approves procurement of defence equipment worth Rs 3000 crores

Don't Miss

Stray dogs kill six Blackbucks in Vadodara’s Sayaji Baug Zoo

India News

Election Commission orders voter roll revision in 17 states, UTs

The Election Commission has ordered a Special Summary Revision of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories. Draft rolls are scheduled for November 12, with final rolls due on January 4, 2027.

Published

14 mins ago

October 15, 2026

APNLive Desk

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has ordered a Special Summary Revision (SSR) of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories, with the exercise aimed at facilitating voter registration and including eligible electors who may have been left out during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

The order was issued on Thursday, October 15, amid continuing political controversy over the SIR process and concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the exclusion of names from electoral rolls.

Under the announced schedule, January 1, 2027, will be the qualifying date for the revision. The draft electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on November 12, while the final rolls are due on January 4, 2027. Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, two states included in the exercise, are scheduled to go to the polls by February 2027.

Which states and Union Territories are covered?

The Special Summary Revision will cover the following 17 states and Union Territories:

Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Goa
Gujarat
Kerala
Lakshadweep
Madhya Pradesh
Manipur
Puducherry
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand
West Bengal

The Election Commission’s order follows earlier instructions issued to state election officials on September 29 to undertake a special drive to enrol eligible voters who had been left out, along with young and first-time electors.

Why has the Election Commission ordered the revision?

The announcement comes amid protests and political disagreements over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Opposition parties have raised concerns about names being excluded during the exercise.

Another point of contention has been an additional declaration required from applicants submitting Form 6 for voter enrolment while the SIR was underway. The declaration required applicants to map their parents to the last SIR, which was conducted around 20 years ago.

The Election Commission had clarified on October 7 that the additional declaration applied only in states and Union Territories where the SIR was being conducted. It said the regular forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would apply outside the SIR period.

The latest SSR order refers to applications for inclusion through Form 6 but does not mention the additional declaration.

What happens in states not covered by the current schedule?

The Election Commission has said that the schedule for the Special Summary Revision will be announced later in states and Union Territories where the SIR is ongoing or has recently been completed.

These include Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Odisha, Sikkim, Tripura and Telangana.

For Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, where the SIR has not yet started, the schedule for electoral roll revision will be announced in due course, taking local weather conditions into account.

The Election Commission’s latest order sets out a separate timeline for the 17 states and Union Territories covered by the current SSR exercise, while leaving the schedules for the other regions to be announced later.

India News

India-US trade deal first phase finalised, drafting underway

The first phase of the India-US trade agreement has been finalised and is undergoing legal drafting, Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said. The deal is expected to be operationalised once India secures a competitive advantage over peer countries.

Published

3 hours ago

October 15, 2026

APNLive Desk

The first phase of the proposed India-US trade agreement has been finalised and is undergoing legal drafting, Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal said on Thursday. However, the agreement is yet to be fully finalised and implemented, with India seeking a competitive advantage over other countries before putting it into operation.

Speaking at the SRCC Centenary Conclave in New Delhi, Goyal said the first tranche of the bilateral agreement had been finalised and was going through the legal drafting process. He expressed hope that the process would be completed soon.

The minister said implementation would follow once India secured a comparable or competitive advantage over its peer countries in the American market.

India seeks an advantage over competing exporters

India wants its exporters to receive favourable market access and tariff terms compared with competitors. Goyal’s remarks indicate that the relative position of Indian goods in the US market remains an important consideration before the agreement becomes operational.

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar also spoke about the negotiations at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum this week. He said the discussions were approaching a possible resolution but noted that India’s position relative to competing economies remained an issue.

Jaishankar said the outcome would depend partly on the terms negotiated between India and the United States and partly on how India fares against other competing economies.

Trade negotiations moving forward, says Commerce Secretary

Commerce Secretary Rajesh Agrawal said the negotiations were progressing in the right direction and that both countries hoped to conclude and sign the agreement at the earliest possible time.

He explained that the signing would depend on the formalisation of the broader tariff structure in the United States. Parallel work was also underway in Washington, including processes linked to Section 301.

Agrawal indicated that the two sides would move towards signing the agreement at a mutually agreed time after the relevant tariff framework was formalised.

Earlier this month, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said India and the United States were working to resolve outstanding issues, although an agreement was not imminent at that point.

India-US trade talks and bilateral relations

India and the United States have been negotiating the proposed bilateral trade pact since early 2025. The discussions aim to address tariff-related differences, reduce non-tariff barriers and improve market access between the two countries.

The negotiations have taken place against the backdrop of broader strains in bilateral relations, including disputes over tariffs and differences concerning other policy issues.

While the finalisation of the first tranche marks progress in the negotiations, the agreement still needs to move through the remaining legal and procedural steps before it can be signed and implemented.

The next steps will depend on the completion of legal drafting, the finalisation of the US tariff framework and the two countries’ agreement on the terms governing the pact.

India News

Nobody can browbeat judiciary, Chief Justice warns over Rahul Gandhi’s march

The Supreme Court issued notices to opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav, over their march to the court on October 12 concerning irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Published

7 hours ago

October 15, 2026

APNLive Desk

The Supreme Court has issued notices to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and other protesters over the opposition’s October 12 march to the apex court. The march was organised to raise concerns about alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The court’s remarks that nobody can browbeat the judiciary have brought the focus back to the dispute over the opposition’s protest and the appropriate way to raise grievances before the court.

Why the opposition marched to the Supreme Court

The march was part of the opposition’s campaign against what it described as irregularities in the voter-list revision process. The opposition has raised concerns over alleged electoral malpractice and demanded action concerning the Election Commission and the revision of electoral rolls.

Rahul Gandhi had led the march to the Supreme Court after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a request to meet opposition leaders, including Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge.

The Chief Justice had advised the leaders to approach the court through the judicial process rather than seek an administrative meeting to discuss issues already pending before the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice’s position on approaching the court

The Chief Justice had said that the Supreme Court’s doors were open to every citizen and that people could approach it through petitions. He also indicated that matters affecting citizens would be considered in accordance with the law.

The distinction between the administrative and judicial functions of the court was central to the disagreement over the opposition leaders’ request for a meeting. The Chief Justice’s position was that pending legal issues should be addressed through judicial proceedings.

Supreme Court issues notices over the march

The Supreme Court issued notices to Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav and other protesters concerning the October 12 march. The proceedings relate to the protest over irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The opposition’s allegations about the voter-list revision remain allegations and should not be treated as established findings merely because the matter has reached the court.

The developments have placed the opposition’s protest, its concerns over electoral rolls and the judiciary’s role in addressing such disputes at the centre of the ongoing debate.