Mukul Rohtagi does a Niren De

A video showing Farooq Ahmad Dar, a 24-year-old shawl weaver from Kashmir, strapped to the front of the army vehicle as a human shield went viral a few days ago. While it created outrage among most people, Attorney General of India Mukul Rohtagi justified the incidence, while talking to the India Today TV. He said “peculiar situations require peculiar measures” and that “the move was the best way to defuse the situation.” To the CNN- News 18 he said, “It was one of those spur-of-the-moment decisions... If an Army major got away without hurting anybody, it's a great job... There was nothing wrong, considering the circumstances. If it has to be done again, it should be done again. We are 100 percent backing the Army and the major”

Coordination of Democratic Rights Oraganisations brought out a press statement on April 25th, saying, “His statement is not only offensive but shows reckless disregard for lawless acts directed against civilians and then justifies it by using spurious arguments which amount to utter contempt for the Constitution”

It adds that “Arguably, Government of India denies presence of any armed conflict anywhere in India and insists that Rule of Law operates even in the “Disturbed” areas, when in fact the armed forces of the Union of India enjoy legal impunity from criminal prosecution in such areas… if Rule of Law indeed prevails in J&K then pre-eminence of Article 21 (Right to life and liberty) of the Constitution cannot be side-stepped. Using non – combatants as human shield amounts to torture and cruel and inhumane treatment of citizens goes against the very spirit of Article 21”."

India “is a signatory to Geneva Convention 1949. Under Rule of War, the use of civilians as human shield is prohibited and considered a war crime. Article 13(2) of the Additional Protocol II (1977), Geneva Convention lays down that “The civilian population as such as well as individual civilians shall not be the object or attack. Acts or threats of violence the prime purpose of which is to spread terror among civilian population are prohibited”.”

This statement by Mukul Rohtagi, reminds one of a similar statement by the then Attorney General, Niren De during the time of emergency after the ‘Habeas Corpus case’ (ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla case in the Supreme Court). Mr. Niren De said that all fundamental rights were suspended during the emergency. Justice Khanna said to this, "Article 21 also contains life. Would government arguments extend to it also?" To which the Attorney General replied, "Even if life was to be taken illegally during the Emergency, the courts are helpless".

Later De justified his statement saying, “I wanted the robes to rage against that violent view I propounded and come down on such Emergency inhumanity. But, to my surprise, barring Khanna, the other justices heard but did not furiously resist. I felt sad as a jurist but found success as Counsel.” 

Rohtagi’s statement comes at a time of normal circumstances while De made his statement during the time of emergency. Using of human shield is prohibited even during the state of war. Rohtagi seems to be fine with it in “peculiar” times. In these “peculiar” times of BJP rule, are we in the process of normalising emergency?