These authorities are the Central and the State Governments. It stipulates that arrested persons and seized property is to be made over to the police with least possible delay. It offers protection of persons acting in good faith in their official capacity. Prosecution is permitted only after sanction of the Central Government. An examination of the various powers available to the Police Authorities under the provisions of the CrPC vis-a-vis those available to Armed Forces under AFSPA would reveal that the Police Authorities still enjoy more comprehensive and wider powers relating to arrest, search, seizure, summoning of witnesses, preventive detention etc than the powers enjoyed by the Armed Forces.
The five-judge Constitution Bench dealt with the challenge to the legality of deployment of the Armed Forces in aid to civil power. Safe Guards 7. Regarding firing on civilians, the army's instructions are that fire may be opened in towns and villages only in self defence and that too when the source of terrorist or militant fire can be clearly identified.
Though the committee found that the powers conferred under the Act are not absolute, it nevertheless concluded that the Act should be repealed. However, it recommended that essential provisions of the Act be inserted into the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of Army personnel must be given immunity but such immunity must not be absolute, nor is it so under the present AFSPA.
Without these powers, commanding officers and young company commanders are likely to follow a wait-and-watch approach rather than actively pursue hardcore terrorists with enthusiasm and risk being embroiled in long-drawn litigation, which may be based on false allegations. On its part, the army must make it mandatory for its battalions to take police personnel and village elders along for operations which involve the search of civilian homes and the seizure of private property.
The practical problems encountered in ensuring transparency in counter-insurgency operations must be overcome by innovative measures. The army must be completely transparent in investigating allegations of violations of human rights and bringing the violators to speedy justice. Exemplary punishment must be meted out where the charges are proved. The article was originally published in Rediff. Skip to main content. Gurmeet Kanwal. September 06, Referring to the continuation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, senior political leaders no longer in government have insinuated on national television that the Indian Army has been given a veto over the decisions of the Cabinet Committee on Security.
The key recommendations of the Reddy Committee were: In case the situation so warrants, the state government may request the Union government to deploy the army for not more than six months. The Union government may also deploy the armed forces without a request from the state. Neither do the NGOs. The brunt is felt by the people in uniform whether olive green or khaki.
They hold the can for Indian Democracy. For that matter, orders of the apex court itself in matters related to this law have not always been accorded the respect they deserve. It goes to the heart of how we wish the Indian state to be ordered.
Whether the state governs with the consent of citizens or against their express wishes. A steady increase in the size of paramilitary forces. Custodial deaths on a scale that does not befit a democracy.
Routine misuse of the law on sedition, now proposed to be strengthened, to send a shiver down the spine.
A plaster cast is needed for a few weeks, to allow a broken bone to mend and heal. Or Kashmir. Not just Arundhati Roy, all of us should worry about where things are headed. Friday, 12 November, Sign in. Forgot your password? Get help. Privacy Policy. Password recovery. Home Opinion The real prob Most Popular.
0コメント