NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 7 (AGENCIES): With the government stoutly defending the role of security forces in Jammu and Kashmir and insurgency-hit Manipur, the Supreme Court today said it was more concerned about human rights violations happening in the heart of capital cities like Imphal.
“It is not the Line of Control (LoC) but the heart of the cities like Imphal, is what we are concerned. Public order needs to be followed,” a bench of Justices MB Lokur and UU Lalit said after Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi submitted that security forces at LoC during insurgent operations have to act in a particular way.
Referring to an earlier constitution bench judgement in the Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights case, the bench said Law in this regard has already been settled, as it has ruled that though an internal disturbance is a cause for concern, it does not threaten the security of the country.
While NHRC counsel and senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam contended that there was “no accountability” in case of human rights violations, Rohatgi said the security personnel have to act “in a particular way” on the LoC during an insurgent operation.
“Truth of human rights violations if any can be found through criminal trials. It is a serious situation. Security personnel at a Line of Control (LOC) or during an insurgent operations has to act in a particular way. How else we do it,” Rohatgi said.
He said what happened in the 1980’s and retrospective enquiry into those incidents will have serious effect on the Army, whether in Manipur or in Jammu and Kashmir.
On the other hand, Subramaniam said “if there are abrogations of human rights, then accountability has to be fixed on the erring personnel. Here there is no accountability”.
The army or security agencies refuse to give any details about cases if there are allegations of human rights violation, he said and asserted that under the Armed Force Special Powers Act (AFSPA) or any other Law this cannot be done.
“In Manipur, it took three years to get an information regarding a case of alleged human rights violation. NHRC is a responsible fact-finding body. No government can say it is not accountable for violation of human rights,” Subramaniam said.
NHRC concerned by lack of co-operation
Meanwhile, expressing helplessness and lack of co-operation from the government, the National Human Rights Commission today told the Supreme Court that it has become a toothless mailbox. The apex court has been hearing petitions related to over 1000 encounters in Manipur and also if the judicial enquiries should be conducted in this matter or not.
The petition filed by Extra Judicial Killings in Manipur Victim Families Association cites various human rights violations and killings by the armed forces and the absence of any accountability of these forces. Taking a strong stand, the Central Government represented by Attorney General told the apex court that NHRC has mere powers of recommendation whether it’s Manipur or Jammu and Kashmir.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi also told the apex court that the big question is that whether there is a procedure of judicial accountability for insurgency operations. Taking a strong stand, NHRC said that there must be someone to whom Armed Forces should be accountable for human rights violations in regions where AFSPA has been imposed.
“It is bad enough that the government views the agency this way. NHRC is marred by red-tapism. In the guise of extreme difficulty during insurgency operations one cannot do away with responsibility,” Gopal Subramanium counsel for NHRC told SC.
During the hearing today, the Centre clearly stated that the powers of NHRC are limited to recommendations and it is upto to the Parliament whether it wants to accept the recommendations or not.
The Supreme Court also posed a question whether NHRC should be allowed to conduct enquiries in cases of alleged human rights violations. Attorney General has sought two weeks time to elaborate his arguments on the limited powers of the National Human Rights Commission.
The apex court has also asked the petitioners to talk to the victim’s families if they want to take a judicial recourse of enquiry or want a compensation. ‘Many victims just want a closure of the matter,’ SC observed. The next hearing is slated on October 26.
