The conviction of six Army personnel by a court martial in the >Machil fake encounter case is an important step in ensuring the accountability of the armed forces in Jammu and Kashmir and other States where the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is in force. The Army opted for a court martial in this case after the Supreme Court ruled in an earlier case of ‘encounter’ in Pathribal that unlike civilian investigating agencies, which under AFSPA required prior sanction to prosecute its personnel, the Army was free to try its members by a court martial. That justice has been done by the court martial is significant in the larger context of efforts to make the armed forces answerable for their actions in conflict zones, and to force the withdrawal of special laws that grant impunity to security personnel in such areas. When police investigations revealed the culpability of its personnel, the Army chose to refer the issue to a Court of Inquiry, which confirmed the murder-for-reward conspiracy. Three Kashmiri youths were lured by counter-insurgents in April 2010 with the promise of Army jobs and handed over to the Army personnel, who shot them at point-blank range in order to earn cash rewards meant for those who eliminate militants. The counter-insurgents were paid off to deliver the youths to the Army personnel for the ‘encounter’. Clearly, from beginning to end the ‘encounter’ was part of a cynical and ruthless project to claim the monetary rewards set aside to eliminate militants.
After the denials and delays in the Pathribal case, the Army did well to hold the rogue elements in its ranks to account in the Machil instance. The Army top brass knew this was no case of mistaken identity or bad judgment in a conflict situation. There was simply no excuse to tolerate such elements in a force claiming to fight militancy and terror. For too long, the default response of the Army has been that its personnel cannot be subject to the regular processes of the criminal justice delivery system. But post-Pathribal, cries to do away with AFSPA had grown shriller. The verdict by the court martial in the Machil encounter case represents the first instance where Army personnel have been convicted for an instance of human rights abuse in Kashmir; it should thus give civil society greater confidence in the internal mechanisms of the Army in dealing with deviant behaviour by its personnel. In the long run, the life sentence handed down to the six men will allow the Army greater room in dealing with militancy in the Valley. The verdict actually reduces the pressure on Army personnel doing their job in Kashmir and other conflict zones in India.
