Supreme Court of India.

NEW DELHI: Governor-ruled Jammu & Kashmir and the Union government sparred in the Supreme Court on Monday with the state forcefully demanding that the stay on probe against an Army major booked for his unit firing at stone pelters in Shopian be lifted and the Centre saying lodging an FIR without its permission was illegal.

Appearing for the state, senior advocate Shekhar Naphade and lawyer M Shoeb Alam told a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud that a 2012 judgment of the apex court had said that even in J&K, where the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is in force, the police were bound by the law to register FIR in case of a cognizable offence.

In contrast, attorney general K K Venugopal said Section 7 of AFSPA barred state police from registering an FIR against an armed forces' personnel without prior permission of the Union government if the action was taken in discharge of duties. The AG said the 2012 judgment needed reconsideration by a five-judge bench. The SC posted the case for further hearing on July 30.

Naphade escalated the tension by questioning the locus standi of Lt Col Karamveer Singh, father of Major Aditya Kumar who has been booked by J&K police, in challenging registration of FIR. "The major's father has no locus standi. He cannot file a petition or a PIL in a criminal case," he said.

On March 5, the SC had stayed police investigation into the Shopian incident while taking exception to J&K police's attempt to treat Army men in faceoff with stone pelters as "ordinary criminals". On February 12, the SC had restrained the police from taking any coercive step against the major. "He is an Army officer. Do not treat him as an ordinary criminal," the SC had said.

As per the FIR, Kumar was leading the convoy which resorted to firing after coming under heavy stone pelting by a mob. Three civilians were killed in the firing.

Lt Col Karamveer Singh, through advocate Aishwarya Bhati, had claimed that the FIR was to frame his son, who was not present at the incident site, and said such steps to persecute Army men would destroy the morale of armed forces operating in trying circumstances in disturbed areas. He said the Army personnel had opened fire purely in "self-protection" to disburse a menacing stone-pelting mob and save themselves from being lynched.

