NEW DELHI, November 27: The Supreme Court today upheld the validity and constitutionality of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, but emphasised that the list of ``do's and don'ts'' given by the Attorney General should be ``treated as binding instructions which are required to be followed by the members of the armed forces in exercising powers under the Act.''Rejecting a petition by the Naga Peoples' Movement of Human Rights challenging the Act, the apex court ruled that the powers it gives to the armed Forces were not ``unreasonable or arbitrary''.A five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice J S Verma, Justice M M Punchhi, Justice S C Agarwal, Justice A S Anand and Justice S P Bharucha, said that the safeguards against an arbitrary exercise of powers conferred under the Act as well as earlier directions of the apex court in this context, ``should be incorporated in the instructions contained in the list of ``do's and don'ts.'' The court also held that a ``declaration has to be for a limited duration and there should be a periodic review of the declaration before the expiry of six months.''Referring to a 1991 direction by the Supreme Court where it was said that the army officers, while arresting a woman or searching her or the place occupied by her, must follow the procedure meant for police officers. The five-judge bench said that the existing list of instructions ``should be suitably amended to bring them in conformity with the guidelines contained in the decisions of this court.''Stating that though the Central government can make a declaration ``suo moto, but it is desirable that the state government should be consulted by the central government while making a declaration.'' The judges said that the power of the Governor to make a declaration under the Act ``cannot be regarded as delegation of the power of the Central government'' and neither is it violative of the federal scheme of the Constitution.The court rejected the contention of the petitioners that there are adequate provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code to deal with the situation and said that the provisions contained in Sections 130 and 131 of the CrPC ``cannot be treated as comparable and adequate to deal with the situation requiring the use of armed forces in aid of civil powers as envisaged by the Central Act.''Calling for a ``thorough inquiry'' into any allegation of misuse of powers under the Act, the judges said that the victim should be ``suitably compensated and the necessary sanction for institution of prosecution or other proceeding should be granted.''The judges also upheld the constitutional validity of the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955.The court held that while exercising powers under the Act, an officer in the armed forces shall use minimal force required for effective action against persons acting in contravention of prohibitory orders.A person arrested and taken into custody under the act should be handed over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station with the ``least possible delay.''
