Supreme Court on extra-Judicial Killing

iasparliament
July 17, 2017
4 months
1385
1

Why in news?

The Supreme Court ordered CBI investigation into suspected extra-judicial killings in Manipur.

What is the case?

  • The ruling came on petitions which demanded an inquiry into 1,528 deaths in counter-insurgency operations in Manipur.

What was the Government’s stand?

  • The Attorney General had argued against the court ordering an investigation into some specific instances.
  • He argued that inquiries conducted by the authorities in Manipur were biased in favour of the citizens owing to local pressure and the ground situation.

What was the Supreme Court’s stand?

  • The cases involved either suspected fake encounters or the use of excessive or retaliatory force.
  • The Supreme Court has reiterated the principle of accountability as an essential part of the rule of law.
  • It has taken the view that the killing of a person who was possibly innocent cannot be overlooked owing to mere lapse of time.
  • The state cannot take advantage of its own inaction and ruin a probe by citing the delay as a reason.
  • The Supreme Court ordered CBI investigation into suspected extra-judicial killings in Manipur.

What is the Supreme Court’s rationale on AFSPA?

  • Last year, the court had ruled that the armed forces cannot escape investigation for excesses even in places where they enjoy special powers.
  • It also reiterated that the legal protection provided by the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, or AFSPA, will have to yield to the principles of human rights.
  • The court’s order is yet another reminder that AFSPA has contributed to the climate of impunity in States where it is in force, especially in Manipur.
  • The situation under AFSPA is so hostile to the concept of human rights that in many of these cases there was no inquiry at all.
  • In some instances, the First Information Report was against the victim and not against the alleged perpetrators.

What are the problems faced by NHRC?

  • The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has been reduced to a “toothless tiger”.
  • It is grossly understaffed despite its increasing workload, and many State governments show little respect for its guidelines and instructions.

 

Source: The Hindu

Login or Register to Post Comments
There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to review.

DATEWISE ARCHIVES - CURRENT AFFAIRS

MONTH/YEARWISE ARCHIVES

DATEWISE ARCHIVES - MAINSTORMING

MONTH/YEARWISE - MAINSTORMING