Observing that “guns are sold like toys in the market,” the Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a full-fledged investigation covering all nine Army Commands into the illegal sale of arms and ammunition by Army officials.
A Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and S.A. Bobde was hearing a public interest litigation petition filed by Supreme Court lawyer Arvind Kumar Sharma on the nexus between Army officials and arms dealers.
The petition focusses on the illegal sale of non-standard-pattern weapons and imported ammunition by high-ranking officers of the Southwestern Command in Ganganagar district of Rajasthan near the India-Pakistan border.
A Court of Inquiry report of September 25, 2008, found 72 Army officials guilty of selling ammunition and imported arms in violation of the Army Orders and Arms Act, 1959.
But the Bench on Tuesday called the 2008 Army proceedings an “eyewash,” noting how most of the Army officials, even after pleading guilty, were punished with just reprimands, recordings of “severe displeasure” and fines of Rs. 500.
Mr. Justice Dattu said it “shocks the conscience of the court” to find that the Army proceedings ended with the guilty men “getting away by paying a pittance.”
“Army officials, trained with the taxpayers’ money and given weapons to save the country, sell them.”
Breaking of law by Army officers shocking: court
If the ammunition reaches the hands of terrorists, they will use it to kill innocent people, Justice Dattu told Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi about the illegal sale of arms and ammunition by Army official.
It said the very act of an Army officer breaking the law to sell his gun for profit in a disciplined force is shocking, Justice Dattu said.
Referring to a case of illegal sale of non-standard-pattern weapons and imported ammunition by high-ranking officers of the Southwestern Command in Ganganagar district of Rajasthan near the India-Pakistan border, Justice Dattu said, “If this is happening in one Command, what is happening in the other eight Commands ... are they [guilty officials] going scot-free? These are not cadets, but high-ranking officials involved. This [Rajasthan case] must be the tip of the iceberg. I think we will have to enlarge the scope of this inquiry to include the nine Commands.”
He asked the Attorney-General to get instructions from the government and give a reply on September 16, the next date of hearing.
The Bench wants the government’s stand, by the next hearing, on the prospects of re-convening the Army proceedings in the Rajasthan case so that the guilty Army officials can be handed a punishment fitting the gravity of their offence.
