Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by wives of Indian Army officers seeking quashing of a suo moto FIR (SCPS Case No. 07/2021) and related proceedings arising from an incident on 4 December 2021 in Nagaland, where the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) is applicable. The incident involved a firing by army personnel of 21 PARA (SF) that resulted in six deaths and subsequent violence, including the killing of one army personnel and injury to another. The FIR was registered under Sections 302, 307, 326, 201, 34 read with 120-B IPC. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) submitted a report recommending prosecution and disciplinary action. The petitioners, whose husbands were among the accused, sought quashing of the FIR, SIT findings, and all ancillary proceedings, arguing that the actions were bona fide duties and that mandatory sanction under Section 6 of AFSPA had not been obtained. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 19 July 2022, noted that Section 6 of AFSPA requires previous sanction of the Central Government for any prosecution, and since no such sanction had been granted, it stayed further proceedings. Subsequently, on 28 February 2023, the competent authority declined sanction. The State of Nagaland challenged this rejection by filing a separate writ petition (Diary No. 17297 of 2024). The court heard arguments on 6 August 2024, but declined to delve into allegations and counter-allegations, focusing instead on the legal bar under Section 6. The court held that the interim order staying proceedings should be made absolute and the proceedings arising from the impugned FIRs quashed, as the sanction had been rejected. However, it clarified that if the State's challenge succeeds and sanction is ultimately granted, the proceedings may continue. The court also declined to issue directions regarding disciplinary proceedings, leaving that to the discretion of the Armed Forces. The writ petitions were allowed, and the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIRs were closed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 - Section 6 - Sanction for Prosecution - Bar on Institution of Proceedings - The court considered whether criminal proceedings against army personnel could continue without previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 6 of the AFSP Act, 1958. The court held that the specific bar in Section 6 prohibits any prosecution, suit or other legal proceedings except with previous sanction, and since the sanction was declined, the proceedings based on the impugned FIRs cannot continue and are liable to be quashed. (Paras 4-6) B) Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 197(2) - Cognizance by Court - The court noted that Section 197(2) Cr.P.C. applies to taking cognizance by the court, but Section 6 of the AFSP Act, 1958 provides a higher bar requiring previous sanction of the Central Government before institution of proceedings. (Para 2) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 32 - Locus Standi of Family Members - The court entertained writ petitions filed by wives of army officers seeking quashing of FIRs, following precedent in Vineet Dhanda v. Union of India and Lt. Col. Karamveer Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings against army personnel can continue without previous sanction under Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, and whether the FIRs and chargesheet should be quashed when such sanction has been declined.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions, making the interim order absolute and quashing the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIRs. It clarified that if sanction under Section 6 of AFSPA is granted in future, the proceedings may continue. No directions were issued regarding disciplinary proceedings.
Law Points
- Section 6 of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act
- 1958 provides absolute bar on prosecution without previous sanction of Central Government
- Rejection of sanction renders criminal proceedings unsustainable
- Interim order staying proceedings can be made absolute upon final rejection of sanction
- Possibility of future sanction does not prevent quashing of FIRs at present
