"What kind of war is this? Who is the enemy?", asks counsel of EEVFAM
Source: Hueiyen News Service
Imphal, December 08 2015:
In a writ petition filed on behalf of the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM), Manipur, advocate for the petitioner on Tuesday asked the Government of India "What kind of war is this? Who is the enemy?" while giving additional note for arguments on behalf of the petitioners.
The writ petition was placed before the Social Justice Bench comprising of Justice Madan Lokur and U Lalit at court number 8 of Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Argument will continue on Wednesday at the same court and likely to continue till December 10 .
In the writ petition, the counsel stated that the Central Government takes the stand that "it is at war with the enemy in Manipur" and said this is a far more serious situation than public disorder.
She said that apart from asking "the enemy to stop, no niceties that are involved in the maintenance of law and order by the police are applicable and that the forces opened fire with the intention of killing the enemy" .
The counsel pointed out that the Central Government further submits that they have no knowledge even today of the commission of the offence or of the identity of the offender and that it is only when the criminal court issued notice under section 125 and 126 of the Army Act, 1950 that the army will hold a court of inquiry and thereafter a court martial if necessary.
The evidence laid before the Justice Hegde Commission provides an insight into how the stand of the Central Government must be understood and answered.
The case of 12 year old Azad Khan has evidence led by four eyewitnesses who said that he was taken from his house by the security forces while he was reading the morning newspaper to his grandmother, he was taken to the field in front of his house, shot dead and a 9mm automatic pistol was thrown by the security forces near his dead body.
The councel asked, "What kind of war is this? Who is the enemy?", and referred to the case of Elangbam Kirenjit Singh in which his father deposed that his son went out on a bicycle looking for a missing cow before he was killed.
Thereafter an eyewitness deposed that she saw men in uniform "stop him, bundle him into a police vehicle leaving the cycle on the road." The case of Umakanta was also referred to wherein two eyewitnesses stated that he was picked up from his friend's house.
The counsel argued that "All fake encounters are custodial killings, they are killings in cold blood.
Thus while arguing that the enemy had to be eliminated what the State is essentially saying is that their actions were justified.
For enemies of the State there is no need to follow the rule of law" .
The counsel also remarked that assuming that the persons carrying out the operations misled their commanding officer(s), then it would be necessary to inquire as to whether or not, after the High Court Enquiries, the Commission of Enquiry Reports and the Justice Hegde Commission Enquiry Report, any disciplinary action was taken against those participating in the operation for lying to their Commanding Officer(s) as to what transpired during the operations.
The writ petition also stated that, "The outlandish and over confident submission that the forces are at war with an enemy in Manipur was repeated in the case of Naga People's Movement of Human Rights (1998 2 SCC 109) and repulsed by the Supreme Court in paras 31 and 39 .
Internal disturbance requires a different approach.
There is no enemy, only countrymen.
The bold submission that apart from shouting "stop" there is no further restrain and the aim is to kill the enemy is contrary to para 53 of the decision.
The Armed Forces seem not to have heeded the warnings given by the Supreme Court as far back as 1998" .
Comment
