"It is not the Line of Control (LoC) but the heart of the cities like Imphal, is what we are concerned. Public order needs to be followed," a bench of Justices M B Lokur and U U Lalit said after Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi submitted that security forces at LoC or during insurgent operations have to act in a particular way.
While NHRC counsel and senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam contended that there was "no accountability" in case of human rights violations, Rohatgi said the security personnel have to act "in a particular way" on the LoC or during an insurgent operation.
"Truth of human rights violations if any can be found through criminal trials. It is a serious situation. Security personnel at a Line of Control (LOC) or during an insurgent operations has to act in a particular way. How else we do it," Rohatgi said.
More From This Section
On the other hand, Subramaniam said "if there are abrogation of human rights, then accountability has to be fixed on the erring personnel. Here there is no accountability".
The army or security agencies refuse to give any details about cases if there are allegations of human rights violation and asserted that under the Armed Force Special Powers Act (AFSPA) or any other law this cannot be done.
Regarding enquiries into 1528 cases of alleged extra-
Whether it is Jammu and Kashmir or the Northeast, the alleged human rights violations by Army or paramilitary forces can be looked into by National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) which will give its report to Centre to be tabled in Parliament.
"Centre is answerable to Parliament and the court on this issue but NHRC recommendations on armed forces cannot be made mandatory and it is only recommendary in nature," Rohatgi said adding that if the government decides to accept or not, it has to given reasons for doing so.
"If there are abrogation of human rights, then accountability has to be fixed on the erring personnel. Here there is no accountability," the senior advocate said.
He further said that NHRC had issued seven distinct guidelines on the procedures to be followed which have been sent to different state governments.
Subramaniam claimed that NHRC was "like a defunct body" which gets all the grants and when it moves against human rights violation, the pace of information is slow.
Rohatgi said he would deal with the sections of Human Rights Protection Act on the next date of hearing. He sought more time as the bench said there was a need to give a meaning to the expression "recommendation" as envisaged in the Act.
While Rohatgi was limiting the meaning of recommendation to award of compensation, the bench was of the view that it has to be determined whether the rights body had the power also to recommend prosecution or not.
On July 8, the apex court had said the situation in Manipur has "never been one of war" and ordered a thorough probe into alleged fake encounter killings there, saying the use of "excessive or retaliatory force" by the armed forces was not permissible in 'disturbed areas' under the AFSPA.
The court had said "the public order situation in Manipur is, at best, an internal disturbance and there is no threat to the security of the country or a part thereof either by war or an external aggression or an armed rebellion".