The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has upheld a severe displeasure censure awarded to a former Rashtriya Rifles sector commander over the December 2023 custodial deaths of three civilians in Jammu and Kashmir’s Poonch district. Dismissing the plea of Brigadier Padmasambhava Acharya, the tribunal ruled that excessive force cannot be used against citizens, even under intense emotional provocation following the loss of comrades in counter-insurgency operations.
The AFT stressed that human emotions must yield to military discipline, constitutional mandates, and strict human-rights safeguards. While dealing with insurgents, the security forces must not violate human rights, and unnecessary force should not be used nor should there be a breakdown of the rule of law. The authority granted under the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1990, does not allow arbitrary use of force.
The tribunal stated that excessive force was used in violation of the law, which was a failure of command and control function. However, in a relief to the officer, the tribunal directed authorities not to maintain a record of the disciplinary action on his administrative file, treating it as an exception limited strictly to the facts of the case.
The case relates to an operation launched on December 21, 2023, when a military convoy was ambushed near Dera Ki Gali (DKG) in Poonch, leaving four soldiers dead. The bodies of two of the dead soldiers were also mutilated. In the subsequent search operations, sub-units rounded up local civilian suspects for questioning to gather actionable intelligence. During interrogation at the Company Operating Base in Mastan Dhara, three civilian suspects succumbed to their injuries.
The AFT examined the powers available to the armed forces under the AFSPA and relied extensively on Supreme Court verdicts dealing with the use of force and human rights during counter-insurgency operations. It held that the sector commander had an important responsibility for the discipline and training of the troops under his command.
The bench rejected the argument that the protection from prosecution provided by the AFSPA prevented administrative action against the officer. It held that section 7 of the Act protects persons acting in good faith from prosecution, suits or other legal proceedings without prior sanction from the central government, but does not bar departmental action.
