NEWSLETTER

Sign up to read weekly email newsletter

13 years 🥳 of Publication, 100k+ Stories, 30+ Countries

Legal Desire Media and Insights
Donate
Search
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Reading: Shopian firing: SC bars J&K from coercive action against Major
Share
Aa
Legal Desire Media and InsightsLegal Desire Media and Insights
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Search
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Follow US
Legal Desire Media & Insights
Home » Blog » Shopian firing: SC bars J&K from coercive action against Major
News

Shopian firing: SC bars J&K from coercive action against Major

By Bhavya Dubey 3 Min Read
Share

The Supreme Court on Monday stopped the Mehbooba Mufti-led Jammu and Kashmir government from initiating any coercive action against Major Aditya Kumar, named in the FIR registered by state police in connection with the death of three people in Army firing in Shopian on January 27.

Issuing notice to the state and Centre, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra ordered, “As an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken on the basis of the First Information Report No. 26/2018 dated 27.1.2018 registered at P.S. (Police Station) Shopian under Sections 336, 307, 302 of Ranbir Penal Code against Major Aditya Kumar.” The court was hearing a petition filed by Kumar’s father, Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh, a serving Army officer, seeking quashing of the FIR.

The bench gave the J&K government two weeks to file its reply and asked Attorney General  K K Venugopal to assist it.  “Let a copy of this petition be served on Mr Shoeb Alam, standing counsel for the State of Jammu & Kashmir, who shall file a reply within two weeks. A copy of the petition be served on the office of the learned Attorney General, who shall represent the Union of India and put forth its stand,” the court said.

The court also issued a notice on another petition which sought a direction to the Centre to set up a committee of experts for conducting a preliminary inquiry before a case is registered against Army personnel, and direction to the state government not to withdraw cases against stone-pelters. Appearing for Lt Col Singh, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said it was a “serious” matter and that “currently an operation was going on”.

Singh contended that the Army personnel were forced to fire at “a savage and violent mob engaged in terrorist activity”, which had hurled stones at an Army convoy and was allegedly about to lynch a Junior Commissioned Officer. The area was “isolated by an unruly and deranged mob who were pelting the said vehicles with stones, causing damage to the military vehicles which are the property of the Government of India, as well as placing the lives of military personnel and military property within the vehicles in grave peril,” the petition said.

Claiming that there was no mala fide intent on the part of the soldiers, the petition stated, “The fire was inflicted only to impair and provide a safe escape from a savage and violent mob engaged in terrorist activity.”  Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, a rights group, described the apex court order as “irregular”, saying that it “appears to favour the accused at the cost of the victims”.

You Might Also Like

Bombay High Court Decision: TikTok’s Petition Dismissed

The Honeymoon Murder

Harvard University Wins Legal Battle Against Trump’s International Student Ban

Sharmistha Panoli’s Case: Question on Free Speech

Shein Accused of Dark Patterns in EU

Subscribe

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!

Don’t miss out on new posts, Subscribe to newsletter Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.

Sign Up For Daily Newsletter

Be keep up! Get the latest breaking news delivered straight to your inbox.

Don’t miss out on new posts, Subscribe to newsletter Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Bhavya Dubey February 13, 2018
Share this Article
Facebook Twitter Email Copy Link Print
Leave a comment Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Bombay High Court Decision: TikTok’s Petition Dismissed

The Bombay High Court, in its detailed judgment, upheld the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks to refuse TikTok’s…

News
June 15, 2025

The Honeymoon Murder

A recent honeymoon murder case has shocked the entire nation. Indore-based businessman Raja Raghuvanshi was found dead in a gorge…

News
June 15, 2025

Harvard University Wins Legal Battle Against Trump’s International Student Ban

Harvard University has recently achieved a significant victory in its legal fight against the Trump administration’s attempt to ban the…

News
June 9, 2025

Sharmistha Panoli’s Case: Question on Free Speech

Sharmistha Panoli, a 22-year-old law student and social media influencer, who was arrested by West Bengal police on May 30,…

News
June 9, 2025

For over 10 years, Legal Desire provides credible legal industry updates and insights across the globe.

  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Legal Marketing Service for Law Firms and Lawyers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Condition
  • Cancellation/Refund Policy

Follow US: 

Legal Desire Media & Insights

For Submissions/feedbacks/sponsorships/advertisement/syndication: office@legaldesire.com

Legal Desire Media & Insights 2023

✖
Cleantalk Pixel

Removed from reading list

Undo
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?