Indian Army Invokes AFSPA in Land Dispute Over Tree Cutting: Court Dismisses Plea

In an unprecedented move, the Indian Army invoked the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) to defend itself against prosecution in a case involving tree cutting. However, the court ruled against the Army, asserting that the AFSPA does not cover disputes related to tree cutting.

The legal battle commenced when Ghulam Rasool Wani, a resident of Bandipora, filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for trees cut by the Army on his land, which had been under Army control since 2001. The Union government, relying on the AFSPA, refused compensation, arguing that legal action against the Army requires prior sanction from the Central government.

Representing the Union government, Advocate Karnail Singh argued that Section 7 of the AFSPA prohibits any prosecution or legal proceeding against the Army without prior sanction. However, Singh did not contest the fact that the Army was in possession of the land and regularly paid rent to the landowner.

Advocate Shafeeq Ahmad, representing Wani, argued that the compensation claim solely pertained to the trees and did not fall under the purview of the AFSPA. He contended that the AFSPA's protection for armed forces applied only to exercising powers in declared disturbed areas. Principal District Judge Amit Sharma ultimately ruled that the suit did not fall under the special powers granted by the AFSPA. The court determined that the dispute was a civil matter since the Army had acquired the property on a rental basis and possessed relevant documents.

The court's order stated that the defendant's status was akin to that of a tenant and, as such, they were not permitted to make improvements or cut down existing trees on the rented land. The court concluded that this type of dispute was not covered by the AFSPA and, therefore, the plaintiff did not require central government sanction to file the lawsuit.

Furthermore, the court observed that the Army had possessed land documents since 2001, which included information about the number of trees. It emphasised that as tenants, the Army was not authorised to cut down any existing trees on the rented land.

Consequently, the plaintiff was deemed eligible to file the lawsuit without government sanction. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, affirming the admissibility of the suit. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for 4 July 2023.

It is noteworthy that the AFSPA has primarily been utilised to prevent prosecutions in civilian courts for human rights violations.