news details |
|
|
| SC judgment takes off sting against malicious propaganda on AFSPA | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, May 3: The Supreme Court judgment in Pathribal killing has taken off the sting of separatists, human right workers and mainstream parties who have been using every trick in the hat to demonise Armed Forces Special Power Act.
The apex court ruling that sanction of Central Government is needed for trial of security personnel by the criminal court, will now make it impossible for all these forces to call for judicial trial of forces in alleged killing during line of duty.
It's for this reason that both Amnesty International and Separatists have termed the judgment as set back.
The judgment will also now make the political propaganda of revoking AFSPA more difficult as it has not only strengthened the case of Army but has also upheld the legality of the contentious Sec 7 of AFSPA, to which Home Minister had hinted at bringing some amendments.
"Use of words like 'No' and 'shall' in section 7 of the Act denotes the mandatory requirement of obtaining prior sanction of the Central Government before institution of prosecution, suit or legal proceedings. From the Conjoint reading of the Sect 197(2) CrPC and Section 7 of the Act 1990, it's clear that prior sanction is a conditional precedent before institution of any of the aforesaid legal proceedings," the court observed.
The Supreme Court observation in this regard is of far- reaching consequences and had totally dislodged the malicious campaign against the Army, especially when performing the duty by attributing wrongful motives.
"A sudden decision to do something under the authority or the purported exercise of such authority may not necessarily be predetermined except for the purpose for which the official proceeds to accomplish. For example, while conducting a raid an official may not have the apprehension of being attacked but while performing duty he has to face such a situation a the hands of criminals and unscrupulous persons. The official may in his defence perform a duty which can be on account of some miscalculation or wrong information but such a duty can't be labeled as an act in bad faith unless it's demonstrated by positive material and was not connected with the discharge of any official duty. Thus any act which may appear to be wrong or a decision which may appear to incorrect is not a malicious act or decision. The presumption of good faith therefore can be dislodged only by content and clinching material and so long as such a conclusion is not drawn, a duty in good faith should be presumed to have been done in exercise of powers conferred under the statue," observed the apex court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
