SC to hear plea to quash FIR against Army on Monday
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear the plea filed by the father of Major Aditya Kumar, named in an FIR by Jammu and Kashmir Police in civilian killings during a firing incident, for quashing the case because it will hurt the Army's morale in fighting terrorism in the state.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra posted the matter for hearing on February 12, after petitioner's advocate Aishwarya Bhati sought urgent hearing of the case.
Major Kumar and other soldiers of 10 Garhwal Rifles have been accused of opening fire and fatally injuring three civilians when a stone-pelting mob attacked an army convoy near Ganowpora village in Shopian district on January 27.
The FIR would hurt the morale of Army personnel in discharging the duty, Lt Col Karamveer Singh said in his plea filed on Thursday through advocate Aishwarya Bhati.
"The manner in which the lodging of the FIR has been portrayed and projected by the political leadership and administrative higher-ups of the state, reflects the extremely hostile atmosphere in the state.
It said that Major Kumar was wrongly and arbitrarily named as the incident relates to an Army convoy on bonafide military duty in an area under the AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Acts), which was isolated by an "unruly and deranged" stone-pelting mob.
The intention of the Major was to save Army personnel and property, and the fire was inflicted only to impair and provide a safe escape.
"The unruly mob was requested to disperse and not to obstruct military persons in the performance of their duties and not to damage government property...
"The unruly behavior of the unlawful assembly reached its peak when they got hold of a Junior Commissioned Officer and was in the process of lynching him to death. It was at this moment that warning shots were fired... which as per the said terms of engagement is the last resort to be taken...," the plea said.
It also sought directions to issue guidelines to protect rights of soldiers and adequate compensation.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
HC to decide if gram panchayat members can continue in Manipur post tenure: SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday said the high court would decide whether the elected gram panchayat members, whose five-year tenure was over in Manipur, were entitled to continue in their posts in the event of the appointment of an administrative committee or an administrator.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said it would like to have the benefit of the view of the high court in the matter and set a three-month time frame to adjudicate the legal question.
"The question that falls for consideration in this case is that whether the elected member of the Gram Panchayat whose five-year tenure is over was entitled to continue as members of the gram panchayat in the event of appointment of administrative committee or administrator, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act of 1994," the bench noted.
The Manipur government’s counsel said the state could not hold panchayat elections due to the unprecedented violence.
"Since, we would like to have the advantage of the opinion of the high court, we dispose of the special leave petition without expressing any opinion on merits, with the request to the chief justice of Manipur High Court to post the main case before a division bench at the earliest. We further request the division bench, before whom the matter is listed, to provide expeditious hearing with an endeavour to resolve the controversy within three months," the bench said.
The bench noted that provision of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act was amended to substitute the word "cease" with the word "continue" with respect to the tenure of the elected members of the gram panchayat.
The petitioners have challenged a high court order and submitted that since elections in gram panchayat could not be held in Manipur for various reasons, the previously elected members of the panchayat were entitled to continue as per the amended Section 22 (3) of 1994 Act.
Section 22 deals with the power of deputy commissioner to appoint an administrative committee or an administrator for a period of six months, which will then oversee the election.
Section 22 (3) of the law says once the administrative committee or an administrator is appointed by the deputy commissioner, the elected members of earlier gram panchayat shall cease to exist.
The top court said what has been challenged before it was an interlocutory order of the high court and the main petition in which the question of law that had been raised was still pending.
The original petitioners before the high court were elected representatives at the fifth general elections for gram panchayats and the zilla parishads who sought a direction to continue in the office beyond the period of five years as stipulated by law as elections were last held in 2017.
They sought to continue as panchayat members till the time the state election commission notified the election for the sixth general elections for gram panchayats and zilla parishads.
On February 29, last year, the high court in its interim order gave liberty to Manipur government to appoint an administrative committee for each gram panchayat and zilla parishad in accordance with law and the provision of the Act.
