A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court yesterday reserved its judgment on a petition by the Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights challenging the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act.
According to the human rights activists, the law is worse than the old Defence of India Act and the now-revoked Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act.
The court-appointed lawyer, Kapil Sibal, submitted that there was no procedure for the people to file complaints if their right to life was taken away by armed forces. He compared this case with the emergency where all fundamental rights were taken away.
More From This Section
Military officers have been given complete control of large disturbed areas of the seven north-eastern states and they can shoot down citizens if the concerned officer thinks it necessary in his opinion. Civil administration no longer function there.
The Attorney General justified the use of the armed forces pointing out the insurgency conditions existing in the border districts of the states. Some districts have international borders with three or more countries and this enables incursions from abroad easy.
Desai asserted that the state governments cannot themselves deal with such situations with their police and civil powers. In fact the state governments want the assistance of the Centre. They have been insisting of the central help all these years. The Centre has not imposed itself on the state governments, nor have they ever complained that the military was there against their wishes.
He went one step ahead and emphasised that even if the state governments did not seek central help, the Union government has a duty to protect the borders of the country. It is a constitutional duty which cannot be shirked, irrespective of the attitude of the states.
The bench which will deliver the judgment consists of Chief Justice J S Verma, Justice M M Punchhi, Justice S C Agrawal, Justice A S Anand and Justice S P Bharucha.