BANGALORE - An Indian army officer is facing criminal charges in Kashmir for allegedly carrying out the extrajudicial executions of three civilians, after he falsely claimed they were unidentified militants.

When photographs of the men killed in Shopian district in July surfaced on social media, Mr Mohammed Yusuf, a resident of Rajouri, was shocked to recognise his son among the dead. Three families identified their killed relatives, including a 16-year-old, who had gone to Shopian seeking work.

In December, after the bodies of those executed were exhumed and their identities confirmed, the Jammu and Kashmir police charged Army Captain Bhoopinder Singh and two civilians with murder and kidnapping of Abrar Ahmed, 25, Imtiyaz Ahmed, 20, and Mohammed Ibrar, 16, for money.

The police said then that the men had "planted illegally acquired weapons and material on the dead bodies after stripping them of their identities and tagged them as hardcore terrorists."

Army officials have indicated that the officer may be court-martialled, but the affected families and their lawyers have said this amounts to shielding the perpetrator.

As if pre-empting criticism, the army announced earlier this month that it would set up a new human rights cell headed by a Major-General for "greater transparency and probity" in its operations.

It is not clear if the new cell will replace an existing human rights cell in the army, according to which - and as stated on its website - 96 per cent of allegations received are unfounded.

The army and other security forces have insisted that any allegations against personnel on duty be handled by the military justice system. But wrapped in ideas of honour and hierarchy, India's secretive military justice system has a poor record of punishing its own for human rights violations.

Many armed force members and military experts have long demanded that the army's colonial-era court martial system be more legally thorough, transparent and independent.

In the army, trials are typically conducted following internal investigation by a panel comprising security forces personnel not trained in law. The panel is aided by a "judge advocate general"- who is neither judge nor advocate. Prosecuting and defending officers are both drawn from the military. The panel members are chosen by a senior convening officer, who has to approve the verdict.

Major Navdeep Singh, a lawyer and former army officer, said: "What is lacking is independence… all limbs of military justice, including the jury, serve under the same authority."

This system is based on the British Indian Army Act of 1911, which the European Court of Human Rights has ruled to be not sufficiently impartial.

In a 2015 report submitted to the Defence Ministry, a committee of defence experts highlighted concerns about jury members lacking legal training, and noted bluntly that the Indian military justice system "remains stuck in a time warp".

Major Singh, who was a member of the defence committee, said that a revamped human rights cell was a sign that the army is serious about human rights, but that "it must be instilled" within the security forces that "human rights is not a bad word and is a shield of law not only for citizens but also for military personnel".

Military justice reforms are crucial as security forces serving in Kashmir and in parts of north-eastern India cannot be tried in ordinary criminal courts, even after being charged by the police, according to a special security law in force in those regions. For that, permission from the central government is needed, which is rarely, if ever, given.

In 2018, the Ministry of Defence said that since 1990, the government had received 50 requests from Jammu and Kashmir for permission to prosecute security force personnel for extrajudicial executions, torture, enforced disappearance and sexual assault.

Of the 50 cases, 47 were denied permission and three decisions were pending.