The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a plea that sought the protection of human rights of security personnel who were being attacked while they perform their duty, PTI reported.
The bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna issued notices to the Centre, Jammu and Kashmir government, the defence ministry and the National Human Rights Commission based on a petition filed by 19-year-old Preeti Gokhale and 20-year-old Kajal Mishra. Gokhale is the daughter of an Army officer and Mishra is the daughter of a retired naib subedar of the Central Reserve Police Force, according to the Hindustan Times.
The petitioners had initially moved the National Human Rights Commission in February 2018, following which the body issued a notice to the Centre. It had first agreed that action should be taken but later said only the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission can act.
The petition asked the government to form a policy to check alleged human rights violations of security forces personnel. “The petitioners are further disturbed by the troops in the Indian Army having to suffer the ire of stone pelters while they are discharging their duty of maintaining peace and security in the area of their deployment,” the plea said, according to The Indian Express.
“The petitioners have no grievance to any complaint/FIR being filed against any armed forces personnel, for any act done by them, which amounts to any criminal offence under the law for the time being in force,” the plea added. “However, they are very much aggrieved by the fact that no similar action is taken against the perpetrators of violence against the armed force personnel.”
“Further, armed forces personnel are also derided of their basic human rights of defending themselves against assault and safeguarding their life and limb,” it added. “There is no mechanism put in place, by the Centre or the State to deal with such brazen acts of human rights violation of the forces. The armed forces personnel is deployed in these disturbed areas, by orders of the respondents, to discharge their duties. As such, it is necessary that the respondent No. 1 [Centre], puts in place a mechanism to deal with and enforce the security of its forces.”