SRINAGAR : The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has upheld the “severe displeasure” censure imposed on a former Rashtriya Rifles sector commander over the December 2023 custodial deaths of three civilians in Jammu and Kashmir’s Poonch district, observing that security forces cannot resort to excessive force even during intense counter-insurgency operations.
Dismissing the plea of Brigadier Padmasambhava Acharya, the tribunal said military discipline, constitutional obligations and human-rights safeguards must prevail even when troops are operating under severe emotional and operational pressure.
“While dealing with insurgents, the security forces must not violate human rights. Unnecessary force should not be used nor should there be a breakdown of the rule of law,” the tribunal said, stressing that such safeguards were essential for a democracy.
The bench also held that the powers granted under the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act (AFSPA) do not authorise arbitrary use of force.
The tribunal observed that excessive force had been used in violation of law and termed it a failure of command and control. It said the failure to prevent the use of excessive force and to issue clear directions was directly linked to the lapse.
The case dates back to December 21, 2023, when a military convoy was ambushed near Dera Ki Gali (DKG) in Poonch, resulting in the deaths of four soldiers. The bodies of two soldiers were also mutilated.
Following the attack, security forces launched search and follow-up operations and detained several local civilians for questioning to gather intelligence about those responsible for the ambush.
During interrogation at the Company Operating Base in Mastan Dhara, three civilian suspects died from their injuries.
A Court of Inquiry constituted by Headquarters 16 Corps subsequently led to administrative action against Brigadier Acharya, who was then commander of 13 Sector Rashtriya Rifles. He was accused of failing to exercise proper command and control, improper handling of civilians and failing to prevent the use of excessive force.
Acharya challenged the two-year censure imposed by the General Officer Commanding (GOC) of 16 Corps, arguing that senior commanders, including the corps commander and the GOC of Counter Insurgency Force Romeo, were present at the DKG control room during the operations and should also share responsibility.
He further argued that the corps commander had effectively acted as a judge in his own cause.
The tribunal rejected these arguments, holding that direct command and control over ground operations rests with the commanding officer and sector commander. The presence of senior officers at forward control rooms for situational awareness, it said, does not amount to micro-level executive control over tactical operations or interrogation of civilians.
The bench also relied on Supreme Court judgments concerning the use of force and protection of human rights during counter-insurgency operations. It noted that Army guidelines prohibiting physical force and third-degree methods during interrogation are legally binding and must be strictly followed.
Acknowledging the difficult circumstances faced by troops following the ambush, the tribunal said the soldiers were dealing with the loss of their comrades in a particularly brutal manner, making feelings of anger and revenge understandable.
However, it stressed that such emotions could not override military discipline.
“In the conflict between human emotions and requirements of discipline, which is in large measure based on the law declared by the Supreme Court, human emotions must yield,” the tribunal said.
The AFT further held that the sector commander had an important responsibility for maintaining discipline and ensuring proper training of troops under his command.
The tribunal also rejected the argument that AFSPA protection prevented administrative action against the officer. It clarified that Section 7 of the Act protects personnel acting in good faith from prosecution, suits or other legal proceedings without prior sanction from the Central Government, but does not bar departmental action.
The bench also dismissed challenges to the Court of Inquiry, observing that the officer had failed to establish any violation of applicable Army rules or regulations.
On the allegation that the show-cause notice was vague, the tribunal said it clearly identified the alleged failures, including failure to exercise proper command and control, prevent excessive force and issue clear directions.
While upholding the censure, the tribunal granted the officer limited relief concerning the maintenance of the disciplinary record.
It directed that the censure should not be retained in his administrative file, noting that the punishment awarded on July 8, 2024, had completed the two-year period prescribed under a Defence Ministry policy dated October 30, 2023.
The policy provides that a censure normally remains part of an officer’s administrative record for 10 years, while a “Severe Displeasure” issued by a corps commander remains operative for a maximum of two years.
The tribunal made it clear that its direction regarding removal of the record was confined strictly to the facts of the case and would not constitute a precedent or an interpretation of law.
