criminal proceedings against army personnel
Providing a major relief to army personnel in a case linked with killing of citizens in Nagaland during a Military operation, SC dismissed criminal proceedings against army personnel involved in a military campaign leading to killing of citizen in Nagaland on 4 December, 2021.
Hearing a petition filed by the wives of army personnel, the apex court made it clear that army has rights to take disciplinary action intact with it.
A violent clash erupted following a military operation in Nagaland, resulting in the deaths of 13 individuals. Seven people lost their lives in the aftermath of the action, while six fatalities occurred during the raid itself. This incident has sparked a significant legal and political dispute.
On December 4, 2021, soldiers conducted a raid in Mon district, targeting suspected militants. However, the operation tragically resulted in the deaths of 13 civilians. In response, the Nagaland Police filed an FIR, and the state government petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging a violation of fundamental rights.
Also Read: Hindu Marriage Is Not A Contract That Can Be Dissolved By Mutual Consent: Allahabad High Court
The Nagaland government claims to have substantial evidence against the army personnel involved, including a major. Despite this, the central government decided not to take action against the soldiers. Centre took the decision one and half years ago. The state government challenged the decision, which accused the central authorities of acting arbitrarily.
In July 2020, the Supreme Court had initially barred the prosecution of these soldiers. This was in response to a petition filed by the soldiers’ wives. The petition argued that the state government was pursuing criminal proceedings against army personnel without central approval. Further more the petition sought the cancellation of the FIR.
Despite efforts by the Nagaland government to obtain the central government’s approval to proceed with the prosecution, approval was denied last year. The ongoing legal battle highlights the tensions between state and central authorities over the handling of the case.
