- Police case violates the officer's fundamental rights, the petition said
- The petition said the army has special powers in Jammu and Kashmir
- It asked that Centre be told to protect rights of soldiers serving in J&K
The contentious police case -- which has now turned a political controversy - had named Major Aditya Singh and his Garhwal Regiment. They were accused of opening fire on a group of protesters, in which three men had died. The army said the soldiers were vastly outnumbered by the stone-throwing mob, and opened fire only after the crowd disregarded repeated warnings.
The petition said the police cannot file cases against army officers in Jammu and Kashmir, since AFSPA (the Armed Forces' Special Powers Act) is operating in the state. The law gives special powers to the army in insurgency-hit areas. The police registered an FIR against the Major "knowing fully well that he was not present at the place of the incident and that the personnel so acting were doing lawful military duty," the petition read.
"My son was doing his duty to protect the soldiers who were being stoned and about to be lynched... He carried out the orders of his superiors," it further said.
In his petition, Lt Colonel Singh said he was compelled to move the Supreme Court directly because of the "extremely hostile situation in Jammu and Kashmir". This, the petition said, became evident in the "manner of lodging the FIR" and the way it was projected by the state's political and administration heads. It appealed that the investigation be carried out in another state with independent and unbiased authorities.
But trouble started after it became known that the police had named the officer and his unit instead of filing a generic First Information Report that does not name anyone. The BJP, which is part of the ruling alliance in the state, raised strong objections. Ms Mufti said the action was taken after consultations with Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.
The army has already filed a case after conducting its internal inquiries. It said the soldiers had acted in "self-defence" after extreme provocation.