.jpg)
Sougata Singha,
Amity University Kolkata
INTRODUCTION
Military laws are those that control the Army, Navy, and Air Force. These military regulations both constrain troops' behavior and grant them some unique abilities. Soldiers have some rights that are restricted and unique rights that are granted to them under military law. For example, as per the Indian Constitution, those selected for carrying out national service, such as bureaucrats or soldiers, are not eligible to petition the High Court or Supreme Court if certain specific acts, such as military laws, impair their fundamental rights. War crimes include disregarding conventions of procedure and fighting regulations as well as breaking the laws of war, which gives rise to criminal liability on an individual basis. Combatants are permitted to engage in conflict under the terms of the rules of war, commonly referred to as the Law of Armed Conflict.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN INDIA FOR WAR CRIMES:
· There are several provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that deal with crimes against humanity and war crimes. According to these regulations, no one may be prosecuted for murder, repeated rape, or for trying to start, support, or carry out a war against the Indian government. India has also established a number of other laws to investigate and punish war crimes and other international crimes.
· One important regulation that permits the seizure and confiscation of the profits of crime, including war crimes and terrorism, is the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which was approved in 2002. This statute requires that a Special Court be established in order to hear issues pertaining to money laundering. India's chief investigating body for crimes committed overseas is the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). It is capable of looking into major charges such war crimes, economic crimes, and corruption-related offences.
· The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act grants the armed forces vast jurisdiction to carry out warrantless searches, make arrests on shaky grounds, murder without repercussions, and demolish properties in the name of "aiding civil power." For fifty years, troops have been using these extraordinary powers to kill and torture Indian residents without fear of being held accountable The Act violates a number of international human rights conventions, such as those governing the right to life, the proscription against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and the right to be free from arrest and imprisonment without cause. Additionally, it violates the victims' entitlement to compensation.
MECHANISMS INSTITUTIONAL FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
India has established many institutional structures to address claims of war crimes and ensure accountability. These consist of judicial bodies, human rights commissions, and military courts.
· Military Courts: The courts-martial that make up the Indian military justice system have the authority to trial personnel for a range of crimes, including war crimes. These courts provide due process and fair trial standards by operating under the Army Act and using practices comparable to those of civilian tribunals.
· National Human Rights Commission (NHRC): The NHRC is essential in looking into claims of human rights breaches, particularly those carried out by the military. It can provide victims relief and suggest measures to be taken against offenders.
· Judicial Bodies: Cases involving war crimes and abuses of human rights by the military forces have been addressed by the Indian court with great assistance.
LOOPHOLES IN THE ENFORCEMENT
States may choose to assist a state that has suffered harm based on their own interests, which should take into account the desire for every member of that society to have their legal system upheld. For the following reasons, this decentralized method of execution is particularly inappropriate under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as it applies to ongoing conflicts. First of all, it would be astonishing if disputes arising from IHL violations were resolved amicably, as in international military engagements. International humanitarian law undoubtedly applies.
Secondly, third states may react in two ways even in the event of an armed conflict between two nations. For purely political motives, they may support one side; nevertheless, in cases involving international law, they will always draw from Jus ad Bellum. As a result, regardless of who violates the Bello Jus, they will support the victim of hatred. Third states may choose not to support a certain side.
INDIA AND ICC
India has consistently supported global involvement in the creation and codification of international criminal law, and it should have been expected to be a pillar of this global effort to suppress and deter horrible crimes and crimes of international concern by means of the ICC (International Criminal Court).
India vehemently objected to the shape the ICC was assuming under the Draft Statutes at the Rome Statute meeting in 1998. India suggested using a procedural no action resolution to make the use of nuclear weapons an ICC crime, while each nation presented its own proposal to the conference. However, the Rome Conference avoided voting on this Indian plan.
Because it has numerous internal conflicts in the northern part of its territory and does not want an international body to get involved, India has not accepted Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which relates to war crimes during conflicts not of an international character. India was therefore terrified that the International Criminal Court (ICC) would exercise its jurisdiction over long-standing domestic issues in India, particularly those pertaining to Jammu & Kashmir and the northeastern states covered by the Imposition of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA).
CASES OF WAR CRIMES IN INDIA
· The 1984 Sikh genocide
Numerous Indian provinces have seen severe violence against the Sikh minority ever since Indira Gandhi, the country's third prime minister, was killed by her Sikh bodyguards.Members of the Sikh community were brutally slaughtered and cruelly attacked. No protection was provided by the government authorities. Certain accounts claim that the government in power at the time intended to carry out genocide. In this instance, the first conviction took place in 2018.
· The 1990 exodus of Pandits from Kashmir
In 1990, all Kashmiri Pandits received a warning over the night over mosque speakers, telling them to either convert to Islam or leave Kashmir. Targets were the mandirs and retail establishments owned by the Kashmiri Pandits. Numerous people lost their lives. People were forced to give up their homes and means of subsistence. The people are still living in inadequate homes. Thus yet, no victims have been granted justice or recompense, with the exception of the removal of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.
• The Gujarat Riots case
The train was set on fire by Muslims. After this incident, the Hindus struck back. The two aforementioned communities were at odds, and this led to a disturbance that lasted for many days. The Gujarat High Court found guilty 23 people in total in this event.
· Delhi's riots in 2020
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Tahir Hussain is accused of being the architect of these disruptions in the charge sheet that the Delhi police filed.He also received funds of a few crores for this. It resulted from the violent anti-CAA protests that took place in Delhi later on. Ankit Sharma was an officer who was killed after being stripped to ascertain his faith. The matter is not yet resolved.
These kinds of incidents abound and could be discussed at length, but the main concern is how crimes with such high death rates continue to occur. Is there no law in place to stop these kinds of things? Given that India is a party to international law dealing to genocide, why does the country lack a domestic legislation regarding this? Despite the critical necessity for laws prohibiting genocide, India is postponing its passage. How much longer can we continue to deny that there is a severe problem while allowing a sizable number of deaths? India is obligated by Article 51(c) of its Constitution to maintain its obligations under international law and treaties. Article 253 states that any treaty, convention, or agreement must be implemented by legislation passed by Parliament.
APPLIED AMENDMENTS AND POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS
The overwhelming volume of cases that have been brought before the higher civil courts makes it clear that the military's legal system has been moving slowly and is unprepared to handle the demands of people who serve in uniform. There are a lot more court cases being reviewed by the Ministry of Defense and, therefore, the soldiers' headquarters.
Many believe that the military system goes against the liberal spirit of the Constitution, and that there must be some sort of balance struck between the demands of military discipline and the democratic society. India's military justice system has its roots in the military laws of England. after the 1857 Mutiny.
These include:
· There are no plans to post bail for the military personnel who has been detained.
· Inadequate legal assistance provided to the accused in military tribunals.
· The convening officer will have a significant amount of control over the court-martial and chairman.
· An analogous executive will serve as the branch's chief and functional controller, replacing Judge Advocate General.
· A military court's verdict and punishment are not subject to appeal.
· Air Force personnel cannot use the double hazard constitutional protection allowed by Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution to prevent a second trial in a civil court.
CONCLUSION
Credibility and integrity of the armed services are affected by war crimes and accountability. A variety of institutional measures, judicial monitoring, and legal frameworks are used by Indian troops to handle war crimes. To guarantee effective accountability, however, issues like legal immunity, a dearth of impartial investigations, and delays in the court system must be resolved. India may improve its commitment to maintaining human rights and the rule of law in situations of armed conflict by fortifying its institutional and legal structures and taking inspiration from global best practices.
REFERENCES
Comments