The Supreme Court of India quashed the FIR against army officers involved in a 2021 Nagaland firing incident, emphasizing the mandatory need for prior sanction under Section 6 of the AFSP Act.

This case involves two consolidated writ petitions before the Supreme Court of India, Rabina Ghale & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition Criminal No. 265 of 2022) and Anjali Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition Criminal No. 250 of 2022), challenging criminal proceedings against the petitioners' husbands, who are Indian Army officers. The proceedings stem from a firing incident in Nagaland on December 4, 2021, that resulted in fatalities. The primary legal issue concerns the applicability and impact of Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSP Act), which requires prior sanction from the Central Government before prosecuting armed forces personnel for actions taken in the line of duty.

Background:
On December 4, 2021, an incident occurred in Nagaland involving a military operation, leading to an exchange of fire that resulted in the loss of lives, including the death of one army personnel and injuries to others. This incident prompted the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) (State Crime Police Station (SCPS) Case No. 07/2021) against personnel of the 21 PARA(SF) unit of the Indian Army, including the husbands of the petitioners, under Sections 302, 307, 326, 201, 34, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners, wives of the accused officers, filed writ petitions with the Supreme Court, seeking to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings.

The petitioners argued that their husbands, acting in their official capacity as army officers during the incident, are entitled to protection under the AFSP Act. The petitioners' central contention was that the initiation of criminal proceedings against their husbands was unlawful because the mandatory prior sanction, as stipulated under Section 6 of the AFSP Act, had not been obtained. They asserted that the lack of prior sanction rendered the FIR and all ensuing legal actions null and void.

Important Observation:
On July 19, 2022, the Supreme Court, recognizing the potential implications of Section 6 of the AFSP Act, issued an interim order staying further proceedings in the case. The Court acknowledged the mandatory nature of prior sanction for prosecuting armed forces personnel acting in their official capacity and noted that such sanction had not been granted in this case.

Subsequently, on February 28, 2023, the competent authority declined to grant the required sanction under Section 6 of the AFSP Act. Despite the rejection of sanction, the State of Nagaland, represented by Advocate General K.N. Balgopal, sought to continue the proceedings and was granted time by the Court to file an affidavit. On March 7, 2024, the Court reiterated its inclination to close the case due to the rejected sanction but allowed the State of Nagaland to present its arguments.

Whether the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners' husbands without obtaining prior sanction under Section 6 of the AFSP Act, 1958, is legally tenable?

Does the absence of prior sanction, as mandated by the AFSP Act for prosecuting armed forces personnel acting in their official capacity, invalidate the FIR and subsequent proceedings?

Can the State proceed with the case against the army officers if the competent authority has explicitly declined to grant the required sanction under Section 6 of the AFSP Act?

The Supreme Court emphasizing the mandatory requirement of prior sanction under Section 6 of the AFSP Act, 1958, for prosecuting armed forces personnel acting in the discharge of their official duties.

The Supreme Court of India, after hearing arguments from both sides, ruled in favor of the petitioners. The Court acknowledged the petitioners' argument regarding the lack of prior sanction under Section 6 of the AFSP Act, 1958, as a crucial legal point. The Court held that the proceedings against the petitioners’ husbands, stemming from the impugned FIRs, could not proceed without the necessary sanction from the Central Government.
The Court asserted that the proceedings based on the impugned FIRs could not continue due to the specific bar under Section 6 of the AFSP Act. The Court, therefore, made the interim order dated July 19, 2022, absolute, effectively quashing the proceedings arising from the FIRs.

However, the Court also stipulated that if, at any point, sanction is granted under Section 6 of the AFSP Act, 1958, the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIRs could be reinstated and continue in accordance with the law. This conditional clause provides a legal avenue for the State to pursue the case if sanction is obtained in the future.

Coram:Justices VIKRAM NATH and Justice PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE.
Between:Rabina Ghale & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. and Anjali Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 17-09-2024