In a major development pertaining to the Oting incident where 13 civilians were killed by the India Army, the Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to Ministry of Defence(MoD) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Monday.
This followed state’s advocate general KN Balagopal and his team, including Nitya Nambiar, Vitso Rio and Prerna Tyagi, moving the Supreme Court, after receiving instruction from the state government in this regard.
The case came up for hearing before Chief justice of India DY Chandrachud and judges JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra on Monday. After 13 civilians were killed in firing by the Indian Army at Oting village in December 2021, an FIR was registered, and the state government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT). The SIT conducted detailed investigation and submitted its report, following which the state government sought sanction to prosecute 30 army personnel. The Central government however declined sanction to prosecute the army officers.
According to the petition, the leader of the army personnel involved in the incident was cautioned by his sepoy through a known source that the underground factions were not in Tiru bridge, but were operating from Wapnyu side, which was a different location. But, despite being cautioned, he went ahead with the operation, resulting in killing of six mine workers and seven villagers, and injuring another 14.
The petition cited the Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR) versus Union of India, wherein it had been held that refusal of sanction order was subject to judicial review, while officers who exceeded the limits prescribed under the Act could be prosecuted and compensation must be given to the victims.
It was further brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that no warning was given before killing as mandated under law, and even the warning must be in the local language.
The wife of one of the accused army officers had filed a petition for quashing the SIT report, while the Central government declined sanction to the state authorities from proceeding against the army personnel, which necessitated the petition for setting aside the refusal of sanction order. This was stated in a press release by advocate general’s office.