This Supreme Court of India in a recent judgement addressed two writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners are the wives of Indian Army officers who sought to quash a First Information Report (FIR) and related proceedings against army personnel, including their husbands. The case stems from a tragic incident on December 4, 2021, in Nagaland, where army personnel from the 21 PARA (SF) unit were involved in a situation that resulted in the death of six civilians. The incident escalated, leading to more civilian casualties and the death of one army personnel. Subsequently, a suo moto FIR was registered against the army personnel under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
The legal issues revolved around the applicability of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) in the area where the incident occurred. Section 6 of AFSPA mandates that no prosecution, suit, or other legal proceedings can be instituted against any person for actions done in the exercise of powers conferred by the Act, except with prior sanction from the Central Government. The court noted that as of July 19, 2022, no such sanction had been granted, leading to an interim order staying further proceedings related to the FIR.
On March 7, 2024, the court was informed that the competent authority had declined sanction under Section 6 of AFSPA on February 28, 2023. Despite the court's initial inclination to close the matter and quash the FIRs, the Advocate General for the State of Nagaland requested time to file an affidavit, which was granted. The final hearing took place on August 6, 2024.
In its decision, the Supreme Court allowed both writ petitions, effectively closing the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIRs. However, the court made a crucial caveat: if sanction under Section 6 of AFSPA is granted at any future stage, the proceedings may continue in accordance with the law. The court also addressed a separate writ petition (Criminal Diary No. 17297 of 2024) filed by the State of Nagaland challenging the rejection of sanction, acknowledging that if this petition leads to a grant of sanction, the proceedings could be revived.
The court refrained from issuing any directions regarding potential disciplinary proceedings against the officers within the Armed Forces, stating that such decisions fall within the sole discretion of the Armed Forces themselves. This judgment highlights the complex interplay between civilian law enforcement and military operations in areas under special laws like AFSPA, emphasizing the importance of proper sanctions in prosecuting armed forces personnel for actions taken in the line of duty.