No compromises: Centre to stand by Army in its affidavit

Those seeking action against Major to be dealt ‘with an iron fist’

JAMMU: In a significant development regarding the Shopian civilian killings, the centre is learnt to have decided to take up an 'uncompromising' stand as it readies its reply to be filed in the Supreme Court in a petition seeking quashing of First Information Report (FIR) against Indian Army Major Aditya Kumar, who along with other colleagues has been made an accused in the said incident in which three civilians were killed last month.

The centre, credible reports suggest, has decided to remind the apex court on the primacy of winning the war against terror in its reply, as on the advice on top legal officer- Attorney General K K Venugopal.

The centre which was asked by the apex court to file its reply while it stayed action against the Major in a plea filed by Kumar's father, has apparently resolved to ‘not compromise’ in contesting the FIR against the Major lodged by the Jammu and Kashmir Police in the incident where Army had opened fire at a stone-pelting mob in Ganovpora village in Shopian.

The FIR was registered against personnel of 10 Garhwal Rifles, including Major Kumar, under sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Ranbir Penal Code, to which Major’s father had moved the top court seeking quashing of the FIR.

On February 12, the court while staying the action, had asked the centre and state governments to file a reply within two weeks. Besides seeking Attorney General of India K K Venugopal’s assistance in dealing with the matter, the court had requested the AGI to clarify the stand of Centre in two weeks.

The reports of a crucial meeting that took place today stressed that the Attorney General Venugopal has advised the Centre to deal with those baying for action against Major Aditya ‘with an iron fist.’

The advice was passed by AGI to Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in a top-secret meeting which accentuated the ministry’s resolve ‘to stand with its forces in the fight against terror.’

A newswire in National Capital reported that AGI Venugopal has remarked the case against Major Aditya threat to counter-terror operations and invoked the sanctity of AFSPA to oppose FIR and question the state government’s locus.

Further adding to the credibility of the reports, Bhartiya Janata Party’s national spokesperson, Gaurav Bhatia, late night, asserted that the party will not the security forces down and will contest the case in Army’s favour in Supreme Court.

“The central government will submit an affidavit in the Supreme Court because the valour of the Army should be protected,” Bhatia said, adding that it was the stand of the centre to protect the Army personnel.

“BJP will always be seen on the side of our brave soldiers who protect our borders. The valour of the Army will be respected and they will be protected,” he said.

Dropping a hint of on what basis the centre will contest the case, Bhatia invoked the privileges of AFSPA, currently in place in Jammu and Kashmir.

“Armed Forces come under Union list & AFSPA is invoked in that area where the incident took place. It is declared as a disturbed region. There will be no action by state government against Army without the consent of Central government,” he said.

These developments, it may be mentioned here, are coming after the Supreme Court on February 12 had restrained the state Police from taking any “coercive steps” against Army officers including Major Aditya Kumar, who have been made an accused in the Shopian firing case in which three civilians were killed, while hearing the plea of Major’s father Karamveer Singh seeking to quash the FIR against his son.

Singh had said his son, a Major in 10 Garhwal Rifles, was “wrongly and arbitrarily” named in the FIR as the incident relates to an Army convoy that was on bona fide military duty in an area under the AFSPA and was isolated by an “unruly and deranged” mob pelting stones, causing damage to military vehicles.

Karamveer Singh has said in his plea that his son’s intention was to save Army personnel and property and the fire was inflicted “only to impair and provide a safe escape from a savage and violent mob engaged in terrorist activity”.
The unruly behaviour of the “unlawful assembly” escalated and they got hold of a Junior Commissioned Officer and were in the process of lynching him when warning shots were fired to disperse the violent mob and protect public property, the plea has said.