NEW DELHI: The Centre on Wednesday made a forceful case for dilution of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment making registration of FIRs mandatory for encounter deaths during counter-insurgency operations by armed forces, even in disturbed areas under Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).In an order on July 8, 2016, the SC had negated the protection against prosecution granted to the armed forces under AFSPA. "If the position maintained by the impugned order continues, it may, one day, be well-nigh impossible to maintain peace and security ," the Centre said. Its strong pitch acquires significance in the context of the surge in violence in J&K and Army chief General Bipin Rawat's warning that stone-pelters seeking to preve nt the forces from nabbing terrorists will be treated as terrorists themselves.Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi said, "The Army has to, in given circumstances, take quick decisions which cannot be dissected later on like an ordinary murder appeal. In other words, the scope of judicial review against active military operations cannot be on the same parameters as in other situations. Therefore, action taken during operations cannot be put to judicial scrutiny."His argument was a powerful illustration of the "tough" stand that the Modi government has taken in dealing with secessionist violence in AFSPA areas, especially in J&K. It also marked a defiance of the view that AFSPA, with its guarantee of legal immunity , could encourage excesses, with the attorney general bluntly saying the Army needed to use full force when faced with insurgents armed with sophisticated weaponry .With a very slim chance of getting the judgment diluted in favour of the armed forces, the Centre engaged Rohatgi to drive home the apprehension of armed forces through a curative petition.He said that in a combat operation against militants and insurgents, who were armed with heavy weapons, Army personnel needed to deal with full force.But if Army personnel remained apprehensive about using force fearing a militant's death as that could lead to registration of FIR against him, it would be difficult to win the battle against insurgents and militants, who aim to secede territories from India, the Centre said in its curative petition filed through advocate R Balasubramanian.A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar told the AG, "You cannot expand this petition to make the court deal with it again on merit."The AFSPA, enforced in disturbed areas of some north-eastern states and Jammu and Kashmir, provides immunity to Army men from inquiry by police for alleged deaths deaths and excesses caused during operations against insurgents and militants.Aware of the slender chance of succeeding in a curative petition, the AG said, "It is an extremely important petition not only for armed forces' personnel which face extreme danger to their lives during every counter-insurgency operation, but also equally important for the security and sovereignty of the country."He said the Army was sensitive to human rights and was not seeking immunity from inquiry by military authorities into complaints of excesses. "Empirical data as compiled from Manipur by the petitioner itself proves the point--18,670 (90%) insurgents have been apprehended by security forces from 1990 to 2015 as compared to 1,881 (10%) insurgents who have died in encounters," he added.During the same period, Army and Assam Rifles lost 928 personnel to insurgents and 1,463 more were injured during counter-insurgency operations in Manipur alone. "The members of the armed forces, while engaged in counter-insurgency operations, need to be given the requisite measure of protection because the nature of job they do can never be complete. They are willing to face these risks in national interest, and the law will always attach importance to the protection of their life, safety and personal liberty ," the Centre said.Lawyers, human rights activists slam bid to get SC's AFSPA order dilutedHuman rights activists and lawyers reacted sharply to the Centre's desperate attempt to seek dilution of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment making registration of FIRs mandatory for deaths during counter-insurgency operations by the armed forces, even in disturbed areas under AFSPA. Amnesty International India executive director Aakar Patel said, "The SC, in its 2016 judgment, had made it clear that there should be no immunity for human rights violations by members of the armed forces. "It is disturbing that the central government appears to believe that respecting fundamental rights will hamper the Army's ability to conduct operations.Does the government support blanket immunity for human rights violations? Are they against independent investigations?" Lawyer and human rights activist Vrinda Grover said, "It is extremely unfortunate and alarming to see that the government, which has the responsibility to protect the right to life of people, is seeking review of the SC order.