news details |
|
|
| HC allows use of pellet guns | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 21: In a PIL filed by the J&K High Court Bar Association, a high court division bench of Chief Justice N Paul and Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey today declined to prohibit the use of pellet guns in the valley.
The bench also declined to issue direction for the prosecution of officers involved in their use. The petitioner claimed that since the pellet gun was having a lethal effect, the standard operating procedures (SOPs), like use of lathi, water cannons and rubber bullets, as followed in other states, which 'do not cause harm to the body should be followed before using fire arms'.
The advocate general submitted that the state was also not very much interested in using the pellet guns but only while dealing the situation which 'goes beyond control, rarely the pellet guns are being used which is causing minimum injuries and if the same is prohibited, by use of fire arms more persons will die which the state wants to avoid'.
The bench observed that almost every day, in the guise of protests, security personnel, their camps and police stations were being targeted by unruly crowds. "The government has passed orders under section 144 of CrPC, restricting the movement of public and vehicles. The educational institutions are closed for about 10 weeks which is affecting the future of students. There is shut down due to various reasons and the situation has not improved as on date. It is true that so many persons were injured due to use of pellet guns or by use of force, some of them seriously. It is also true that because of the use of pellet guns, loss of life is less. The petitioner is claiming that there are human rights violations. If the protest is not peaceful and security persons are attacked by a huge violent mob, they have to necessarily use force as their self defence and for protecting public property. For dispersal of mob and maintenance of law and order, detailed instructions are issued to the law enforcing agencies in the name of SOPs," the court said.
"Whether in a particular situation or at a particular place the use of force is excessive or not, it can only be ascertained after investigation and findings rendered by some authority," the court said.
"It is manifest that so long as there is violence by unruly mobs, use of force is inevitable. What kind of force has to be used at the relevant point of time or in a given situation, has to be decided by the persons incharge of the place where the attack is happening. This court in the writ jurisdiction without any finding rendered by the competent authority cannot decide as to whether the use of force in a particular incident is excessive or not. Having regard to the ground situation prevailing as of now and the fact that Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, has already constituted a Committee of Experts through its July 26, 2016 memorandum for exploring alternatives to pellet guns, before filing of report by the expert committee and a decision taken in this regard at the government level, we are not inclined to prohibit the use of pellet guns in rare and extreme situations," the bench said.
"The petitioner's contentioin that SOP has not been followed while handling the mobs cannot be decided in the writ petition as the state DGP, in his reply, has specifically stated that the SPO guidelines are being strictly followed. Thus there is dispute regarding the following or non-following of SPO guidelines. Whether at a particular place the guidelines issued in the SOP are being followed or not, can be individually decided, but in general no one can be in a position to give a finding. Thus the submission made by the advocate general and the statement of DGP are recorded and under such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition with regard to prohibit use of pellet gun," the court said while rejecting the prayer.
The court said so far as prayer for registration of cases against the officers, who had taken the decision of using the pellet guns on the protestors after July 8, 2016 and those who actually fired the pellet guns be prosecuted, it could not be considered as no findings of use of excessive force, violating the SOP guidelines had been recorded by any fact finding authority as stated supra. Hence the persons alleging use of excessive force, due to which death or injury had occurred, could very well approach the appropriate forum to establish it and seek redressal, the court added.
The bench, however, made it clear that the pendency of the writ petition with regard to other prayers would not be a bar for the state government for paying compensation to the deserving family members of the deceased or to the injured persons as it may deem fit and directed respondents to ensure that all the injured were extended adequate medical treatment for whatever injury they 'sustain and provide them all possible required medical treatment by specialists and if specialists are not available in the state, appropriate arrangement has to be made to treat them by inviting specialists in the state or to shift them to hospitals outside the state wherever specialists are available'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
