Is the permission of the Union government necessary for registration of an FIR against Army personnel in Jammu & Kashmir? The Supreme Court will decide this issue, which involves interpretation of Section 7 of Armed Forces (Jammu & Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 (AFSPA)..A Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud was hearing a petition filed by the father of Major Aditya Kumar, challenging initiation of criminal proceedings against his son for the death of stone pelters, in what came to be known as Shopian firing incident..On February 12, the Court had ordered that no coercive action be taken against the Army personnel..Subsequently, the Central government had told the Supreme Court that as per Section 7 of AFSPA, no criminal proceedings can be initiated against Army personnel in J&K without the prior sanction of the Central government..Thereafter, the state of Jammu & Kashmir had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court, stating that such sanction is not necessary and that the Code of Criminal Procedure calls for the compulsory registration of FIRs in cases of cognizable offences..When the matter came up for hearing today, Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade told Supreme Court that the issue is one which is likely to impact places other than Jammu & Kashmir..He also assailed the locus of the petitioners, while terming the relief given by the Supreme Court as “extraordinary”..“This is not a Habeas Corpus petition that a father can move on behalf of the son. Your Lordships have stopped the investigation. It is an extraordinary relief”, said Naphade..The Court then said that it will decide the question of law involved and adjourned the matter..The petition was filed by Lt. Col. (Retd.) Karamveer Singh, the father of Major Aditya Kumar, who was named in an FIR dated January 27 under Sections 336, 307 and 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) of Jammu & Kashmir..In his petition, the Army veteran gives an account of the incident that led to the filing of the FIR against his son and other personnel..“Army convoy on bonafide military duty in an area under the AFSPA which 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 the military personnel and military property within the vehicles in grave peril.”.Subsequently, it is alleged, the situation went out of control, and a warning was issued to the unlawful assembly. The mob paid no heed to this warning and continued pelting vehicles. It is stated that they got hold of a Junior Commissioned Officer and was in the process of lynching him to death..At this point, the convoy fired warning shots, and when they refused to release the officer, shots were fired at the mob. Eight civilians and seven soldiers were injured in the melee, with one civilian succumbing to his injuries on January 31 this year..Singh states in the petition that the FIR falsely implicates his son, who was not present at the place of the incident. It is also contended that that the Army Act 1950 is a special legislation that overrides the Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of J&K, under which the FIR was lodged. Thus, the soldiers ought to face Court Martial as per the Army Act, as opposed to being put through the regular criminal procedure..On February 12 this year, the Supreme Court ordered that no coercive action should be taken against Army personnel named in the FIR. The Bench also sought the assistance of Attorney General for India KK Venugopal in the matter and directed the petitioner to provide a copy of the petition to him.