In a groundbreaking ruling, the Principal Session Judge, Amit Sharma, has dismissed the Army's argument that it cannot be prosecuted without prior permission from the Central government. The court's decision came in response to a civil suit filed by Ghulam Rasool Wani, a resident of Chuntimulla village in Bandipora, accusing a specific unit of the Army of cutting down fruit trees on his rented property. The judge ruled that there is no need for the plaintiff to obtain sanction from the Central government before filing such a suit.
According to Wani's petition, the Army's 14 Rashtriya Rifles (RR) unit had taken his premises on rent in 2001. At the time, the property had 85 trees, including several fruit-bearing ones. The petition states that between 2001 and 2009, the Army cut down a total of 64 trees, including six valuable walnut trees. Wani further alleged that the Army not only felled the trees but also used the timber and wood from the cut trees. The J&K government's horticulture department assessed the losses caused by the tree cutting to be around Rs 5,20,922.
In addition to the monetary loss, Wani claimed that the Army prevented him from harvesting fruits from the remaining trees on his property, leading to an estimated loss of Rs 1,54,800 over eight years. Consequently, Wani approached the court seeking compensation of Rs 6,75,722, along with interest.
During the hearing, the Army's defense counsel, Karnail Singh, argued that no legal proceedings could be initiated against the Army without the Central government's sanction, citing Section 7 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). The section states that no prosecution suit or legal proceedings can be instituted against any person in respect of anything done in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act without the previous sanction of the Central government.
However, Wani's counsel, Shafiq Ahmad Bhat, countered the Army's contention, stating that their interpretation of the AFSPA was selective and that the cutting of trees was a civil matter not covered by the Act. Bhat presented arguments on each of the eight sections of AFSPA, convincing the judge that the dispute fell outside the scope of the Act. Rejecting the Army's claim, Judge Amit Sharma listed the case for further hearing on July 4.
In his judgment, Judge Sharma highlighted Section 4 of the AFSPA, which provides protection to the Armed Forces for exercising powers in disturbed areas. He noted that the present controversy was not covered within the ambit of the special powers granted to the Armed Forces under the Act. The court ruled that the Army's status in this case was no more than that of a tenant, prohibiting them from making any improvements or cutting down trees on the rented land.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
