July has a special significance for human rights activists in Manipur. It was in July 2004 that 12 elderly Manipuri women leaders stripped themselves naked in front of the Assam Rifles Centre at Kangla with a placard that read, “Indian Army Rape Us”.That followed the arrest and killing of a suspected woman cadre of a rebel group by personnel of the 7 Bn Assam Rifles.

When protests erupted, then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that there was a need to replace the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act by a more humane one. And he did constitute an inquiry commission headed by Justice Jeevan Reddy. It submitted its report within six months, recommending repealing the Act. But no action followed, apparently because of objections from the Army.

On 14 July 2017, the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgment. It's division bench, comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Uday Umesh Lalit, ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to probe into 62 cases of alleged extra-judicial killings by the Army, Assam Rifles, Central Reserved Police Force and the state police.

Those 62 were picked up from the 1,528 such cases reported to the apex court. While the Army then saved itself
under the Act, the police received political patronage. The legal fight against the AF (SP) Act, 1958 actually began at a canteen in Delhi University's Gwyer Hall, sometime in 1979.

I, along with Lokendrajit Paonam (now a senior lawyer in Delhi) and Elangbam Bijoykumar Singh, now professor at Manipur University, discussed the need to challenge the constitutional validity of the AF (SP) A in the Supreme Court.
On 9 September 1980, entire Manipur was declared a “Disturbed Area” following, which the Army was inducted.

On 10 October, 1980 we moved the Supreme Court contending that the Act deprived the fundamental rights of citizens as enshrined in the Constitution, among others. That was the first time the apex court was approached to quash this
draconian act. Around 1985, the Naga People's Movement for Human Rights wrote to the Chief Justice of India. And that was later treated as a petition.

Around 1996, the full bench of the National Human Rights Commission visited Imphal. At the press meet, I was surprised to learn that the NHRC knew nothing about the existence of the Act. We had to say that a case was filed by
us in 1980 and was pending. The NHRC then returned to Delhi and moved the Supreme Court making itself a party to the case.

After 17 years the case was finally disposed off in 1997 by a five-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court headed by then Chief Justice of India J S Verma. And since NSCN (IM) leaders were already engaged in formal talks with the Centre, the Supreme Court thought it prudent to name the case as NPMHR Vs Union of India and others.

Thus, around mid-1997, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of the AF (SP) A but at the same time, it
issued dos and don'ts to the Armed  Forces operating under the Act. It also attached a rider to the state governments,
which was using the services of the armed forces under the Act, making it mandatory for them to have a bi-yearly review of the Act.

These restrictions find reflection in the recent verdict on the Act. Then, in 1998, the Manipur Government constituted the Manipur State Human Rights Commission. I was made a member and later became its chairperson-in-charge. What we did was to extend the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993.That was also the time when the Army/Assam Rifles were on the rampage arresting suspected militants without arrest warrants.

What we did was to empower the state police over the Army by issuing notices to the director general of police to ask the
Army if any person had been picked up by them without issuing an arrest warrant as complaints had been received from the arrested person's guardians. This had a very positive effect. A Colonel came and asked me to desist from doing so (Somehow the MSHRC was made defunct from 2010).

Then in 1999 came the case of Tayeb Ali, a tailor who was allegedly picked up by the 17-Assam Rifles. After three days, when he did not  return home, his wife came to us at the State Human Rights Commission. We asked the police to inquire. They came up with a report and statements of persons who saw Tayeb Ali being taken inside the battalion HQs and also the Army's denial. We forwarded this report to the NHRC which, in turn, approached the Defence Ministry.

Its reply stated that Tayeb Ali was killed in an encounter and his body was disposed off by the Kangpokpi police after it was picked up by them  following the encounter. In a historic ruling, the NHRC made for the first time a full interpretation
of its Article 19 and ruled that “the onus to prove that the missing person was not in their custody lay with the Army” and awarded an interim relief of Rs three lakh to the next of kin of Tayeb Ali.

Then the Human Rights Law Network picked up the case and moved the Gauhati High Court praying for a CBI inquiry, which was granted. After the investigation, the CBI ruled that the said encounter happened at a place out of the operational area of the 17 Assam Rifles and held that two Army captains, one noncommissioned officer and two other
ranks and one police inspector who was the then officer-in-charge of Kangpokpi police station, were prima facie guilty of abduction and subsequent murder and disposal of the body of Tayeb Ali.

The two captains have since been promoted to the ranks of Lt Colonels and the police inspector has sinc been made a deputy superintendent  of police. When asked about the proceedings on the murder charge in the Civil Court, Meihoubam Rakesh, director of the local HRLN unit said that the matter had come to a dead end as the judge had refused to pursue the case pending the non-issuance of permission by the Government of India for the prosecution of the guilty men as they were protected by the AF (SP) A under which prior prosecution sanction is required from the Centre for crimes deemed to have been committed under provisions of the Act.

The moot point to be raised was the Army-CBI proof.

Then in November 2000, personnel of the 8th Bn Assam Rifles shot dead 10 persons in retaliation to a bomb attack on one of their convoys at Malom. That prompted a young poetess, Irom Chanu Sharmila to undertake an indefinite hunger strike demanding the repeal of the AF (SP) A. This now brings us to the recent ruling of the Supreme Court ordering
a CBI probe into 62 cases of extra judicial killings out a total of 1,528 cases cited by the Human Rights Alert and
the Extra Judicial Executions Families Association.

While welcoming the verdict, chief minister N Biren Singh said that his government will extend full cooperation
to the probe. HRA chief executive officer Babloo Loitongbam said that the ball was now in the CBI's court, adding that the probe should concentrate on identifying who actually gave the execution orders, apart from the personnel who actually carried it out.

But what needs to be taken into account is the manner in which the CBI had been conducting the probe into the killing of Sanjit, a former rebel who was shot in broad daylight some years ago in the heart of the Imphal town after being taken into the custody by the police commandos. Here the main accused is havildar Thounaojam Herojit. He has already
admitted having killed Sanjit on the orders of his senior officer and added that he had earlier carried out 130
such executions, also on the orders of his “superiors”. That the CBI is yet to record a judicial statement of Herojit
is another angle that needs to be examined.

It is to be hoped that the Supreme Court will direct the Centre to grant prosecution sanction against those armed forces personnel found guilty by the CBI probe. The onus for a fast track trial lies with the state government.

(The writer is the Imphal-based special representative of The Statesmans)