"The prayer for hearing the curative petition in open court is rejected," a bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said in its order passed yesterday during in-chamber proceedings in which lawyers do not participate.
"We have gone through the curative petition and the relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this court... Hence, the curative petition is dismissed," the bench, also comprising Justices Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar, Madan B Lokur and U U Lalit, said.
In a curative petition seeking recall of the verdict of July 8 last year as well as the order dismissing the review plea, the government had said that action taken by the army during such operations "cannot be put to judicial scrutiny".
Officers and men in the armed forces, engaged in counter- insurgency operations, are required to be given requisite measures of protection, it had said.
In its petition, the Centre had said there was "error apparent on the face of record" in the verdicts passed by the apex court and it has "hampered" the ability of the armed forces to respond to "insurgent and terrorist situations".
"If the position maintained by impugned order continues, it may, one day, be well-nigh impossible to maintain peace and security. The Indian Army has to, in given circumstances, take quick decisions which cannot be dissected later on like an appeal against the ordinary murder appeal," it had said.
The plea has said the court's directions, including that allegations of use of "excessive and retaliatory force" by armed forces in Manipur must be probed, have far-reaching ramifications on the security and integrity of the country, especially in areas which are plagued with constant militant and insurgency activities.
The apex court's verdict last year on investigating the role of the armed forces in encounter cases had come on a petition alleging that the forces were misusing the protection under the AFSPA in Manipur during anti-militancy operation.
The court had also held that use of "excessive force" by the armed forces or police was not permissible in 'disturbed areas' under the draconian AFSPA.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
