Saturday June 23, 2018
Home Uncategorized Meghalaya HC ...

Meghalaya HC directs Centre to enforce AFSPA in Garo Hills

0
//
124
Republish
Reprint

Shillong: The Meghalaya High Court has directed the central government to enforce the controversial Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, (AFSPA) 1958 in the insurgency-ravaged districts of Garo Hills to control the deteriorating law and order situation in the state.

The high court also directed the union home secretary and defence secretary to ensure compliance by placing this order before the central government to consider the use of AFSPA and deployment of armed and para-military forces in the Garo Hills.

It further directed the principal secretary in the PMO to place the order before Prime Minister Narendra Modi for perusal and consideration.

The order of the full bench of Chief Justice Uma Nath Singh, Justice T.N.K. Singh and Justice S.R. Sen, issued late Monday, is significant coming in the wake of the recent kidnapping and killing of an Intelligence Bureau officer Bikash Kumar Singh and businessman Kamal Saha by A’chik Songna An’pachakgipa Kotok militants and abduction of government official Jude Rangku T. Sangma by Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA) militants. Sangma was released early Tuesday.

“We have no option but to direct the central government to consider the use of AFSPA in the Garo Hills area and deployment of armed and para-military forces to control the situation in the aid of but certainly not under the command of civil and police authorities till life becomes normal and the incidents of rampant kidnapping and killing are totally stopped,” the court noted.

“We are also not oblivious of the fact that with great power comes great responsibility to exercise self-restraint, especially in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but now since the law and order situation in the Garo Hills has deteriorated beyond redemption, we have no option but to issue certain serious directions in order to protect the civil liberties and fundamental rights of the common citizens as well as the public servants,” the order stated.

Maintaining that the central government can enforce AFSPA for the purpose of deployment of armed forces in the aid of civil administration in order to restore public order and maintain the law and order, the court said: “Such deployment of armed forces would be only for the purpose of enabling the civil authorities in the state to deal with the situation effectively so that there is a regime of rule of law.”

Observing that there was no end to violent incidents perpetrated by Garo National Liberation Army and other militants, including calling bandhs in Garo Hills, the court said: “… the police and civil authorities, despite the best of their efforts, are not able to control the incidents of kidnapping for ransom and killings on non-fulfilment of illegal demands and the native population is totally exposed to the influence of militancy, and the funds allocation by the Central Government has not helped in ameliorating the decline of law and order”.

In its 13-page order, the court also quoted data supplied by the Meghalaya Police on the abduction of 87 people — 25 civilians, 27 businessmen, 25 private sector employees, five government employees and five teachers — for ransom in different parts of Garo Hills from January to October 31 by Garo militants.

“It is also informed that the majority of Garo population reside in villages and they are basically dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood. Though the population is just about seven lakh, yet they are not feeling secured and they have to live totally exposed to the mercy of insurgents who raise all kinds of illegal demands, including food and shelter,” the order said.

Pointing out that even the chief justice and judges of the high court were getting “veiled threats” through anonymous letters, the bench said: “It may not be proper for us to say anything about our security which is, for the present, being looked after by the state.

“Generally, we put all such anonymous letters into shredders but since two of us are to lay our office in January and February, 2016, and third one in March, 2019, one cannot claim to be fully safe and secured.”

The court has fixed November 18 as the next date for hearing of the matter.

(IANS)

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 NewsGram

Next Story

Woman Can Have Husband’s Salary Information: MP High Court

Sunita had filed an RTI in the case to get the information of Pawan’s salary after a trial court rejected her plea.

0
Court
challenged the CIC order before a single bench in MP High Court which set aside the CC order. Sunita did not stop here. She challenged the single bench order before a double bench in the MP High Court Pixabay

By Ajay Kumar

In a very interesting case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered that a woman has the right to know the remuneration of her husband.

The bench of Justice S. K. Seth and Nandita Dubey ruled the verdict on the petition of Sunita Jain who wanted to have a higher maintenance from her estranged husband, Pawan Kumar, stating that he was a senior officer in BSNL. Sunita was getting a maintenance of Rs. 7,000 per month.

Counsel for the petitioner asserted that Sunita’s husband is on a reputed designation with state-run BSNL.  Sunita had filed an RTI in the case to get the information of Pawan’s salary after a trial court rejected her plea.

Court
Counsel for the petitioner asserted that Sunita’s husband is a on a reputed designation with state run-BSNL. pIXABAY

The issue reached to the CIC office where the in an order dated July 27, 2017, it asked the Central Public Information Officer of BSNL to provide the salary details of Pawan Kumar. Consequently, the husband challenged the CIC order before a single bench in MP High Court which set aside the CC order.

PayTM on Sharing User Data: Paytm Refutes Reports of Sharing Indian Users’ Data With Third Parties

Sunita did not stop here. She challenged the single bench order before a double bench in the MP High Court which, in an order on May 15, allowed the writ appeal of Sunita and upheld the order of CIC stating that a wife has the right to know about his husband’s salary. The bench observed a wife cannot be denied for this information by considering her third party.