The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has upheld the ‘severe displeasure’ awarded to a Brigadier commanding a Rashtriya Rifles (RR) Sector in the Poonch region of Jammu and Kashmir over a 2023 incident in which three civilians died during interrogation following the ambush of an Army column. Four soldiers were killed in the attack, two of whom were beheaded.In an order pronounced on August 20, the AFT’s Chandigarh Bench, comprising Justice Sudhir Mittal and Lt Gen Rambir Singh, observed that the officiating commanding officer (CO) of the RR battalion had directed a company commander to use “slightly harsh” methods on suspects to extract information.The Bench further observed that the RR Sector Commander, Brigadier P Acharya, had himself displayed anger, assaulted a suspect and failed to influence officers directly under his command to exercise restraint.A Court of Inquiry (COI) was convened by Headquarters 16 Corps in December 2023 to investigate the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the three civilians in the area of responsibility of 48 RR, which functioned under 13 Sector RR commanded by Brig Acharya.Upon completion of the inquiry, a show-cause notice was issued to Brig Acharya in April 2024 asking why administrative action should not be taken against him for: (a) failing to exercise proper command and control during the interrogation of civilians in December 2023, (b) using physical force against civilians, (c) failing to stop the use of excessive and unlawful force that resulted in the deaths of three civilians and (d) failing to issue clear directions to officers under his command regarding the handling of civilians.After considering his reply, the General Officer Commanding (GOC), 16 Corps, Nagrota, awarded the officer a ‘severe displeasure’ in July 2024, effective for two years. Brig Acharya subsequently challenged the order before the AFT.Among the Company Operating Bases (COBs) of 48 RR were Dera Ki Gali (DKG), Mastan Dhara and Bafliaz. According to court records, one of the company commanders, Maj Pankaj Singh, sought permission from the officiating CO, Maj Raj Kumar, to conduct night firing on December 21, 2023. The request was approved.Vehicles for the movement were provided by COB Bafliaz, and the firing team reached DKG at around 1.30 pm. At 3.37 pm, a call was received from COB Bafliaz reporting that the vehicles returning to Bafliaz had been ambushed. The CO informed the Sector Commander, following which troops and an ambulance were dispatched. Among the casualties recovered from the site were the bodies of two beheaded soldiers.A search-and-cordon operation was subsequently launched. At about 10.30 pm, the Sector Commander sent a list of suspects to the CO. The CO was directed to de-induct from the cordon on the morning of December 22, after which several suspects were rounded up and taken to COB Mastan Dhara. Interrogation of the suspects commenced, and three of them subsequently died, according to court documents.In his petition before the AFT, Brig Acharya stated that he was informed on the night of December 21 that he had been removed from command. A signal dated December 22 from Army Headquarters attached him to Headquarters 25 Infantry Division, and the COI was convened the following day.“In a situation as exists in the instant case, troops involved in follow-up operations faced a dilemma. Having lost their brothers-in-arms, and that too in a brutal manner, made their blood boil and development of emotions of revenge is quite natural. On the other hand is discipline, instilled by rigorous training, commanding them to exercise restraint and scrupulously follow plans to trace the culprits. Even in war, the Indian soldier is known for his discipline and adherence to the Geneva Conventions,” the Bench observed.“In the conflict between human emotions and requirements of discipline, which is in large measure based on the law declared by the Supreme Court, human emotions must yield,” it added.The Bench held that there was no illegality in the action taken by the Army authorities and no violation of due process, as alleged by the petitioner. It, therefore, ruled that no judicial interference was warranted.