Nagaland's Mon district massacre: SC ends criminal proceedings against Army personnel

Guwahati, Sept 17: The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, closed criminal proceedings against army personnel involved in a botched counter-insurgency operation that resulted in the deaths of 14 civilians in Nagaland’s Mon district in December 2021.

The court, however, left open the possibility of the case proceeding if the Centre grants sanction for their prosecution.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale added that its decision would not prevent the army from taking disciplinary action against the personnel involved.

The families of the accused personnel, including a major, had filed petitions seeking to close the criminal cases, citing immunity under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which grants protection to army personnel operating in conflict areas.

They argued that the Nagaland government lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the army without prior sanction from the Union government, as required under AFSPA.

The incident in question occurred on December 4, 2021, when an Army team allegedly mistook a group of miners in Oting village for militants and opened fire on their pickup truck, killing six civilians. T

The violence escalated when security forces allegedly open-fired again, resulting in the deaths of eight more civilians after villagers protested against the killings.

In February 2023, the Union government denied sanction to prosecute the 30 army personnel involved.

The Nagaland government, however, maintained that it was justified in filing criminal cases against the soldiers and argued before a trial court that the army's request for a court martial should not negate the state's right to seek justice for the civilians killed.

The tragic event led to widespread outrage in Nagaland, and the state assembly unanimously passed a resolution demanding the repeal of AFSPA in the region. However, the law remains in effect, and the prosecution of the army personnel hinges on approval from the Union government.

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not prevent further legal action if the necessary government sanction is granted, leaving the possibility open for the case to reach its conclusion.