The deputies of the State Duma advanced a new version of the bill in the second and third readings, aiming to regulate the process of disciplinary arrest for military personnel involved in a special military operation (SVO). This move was announced by the lower house’s press service, signaling a shift in how such disciplinary measures could be applied and governed at the parliamentary level.
Under the document, military personnel would not face arrest when the equipment they use is essential for carrying out combat missions. The proposed law sets out that arrest would be avoided in cases where the gear and tools in question directly support the execution of assigned tasks, clarifying the operational need for certain devices during active duty.
Beyond this, the bill would grant commanders powers to impose disciplinary arrests on subordinates. The maximum duration is capped at ten days, with the stated grounds described as serious disciplinary offenses. Included in these offenses is the use of home or civilian equipment within service duties that can access or expose information and telecommunications networks, potentially enabling the distribution of audio, photographic, video materials, or geolocation data.
On July 24, the State Duma also voted to add an amendment making it a disciplinary offense for air defense personnel to carry a range of electronic devices while on duty. The proposal quickly drew criticism from some Russian officers and a number of lawmakers who questioned its implications for on‑the‑ground operations and personnel autonomy.
On July 31, TASS reported that the lower chamber could reconsider or overturn the decision to enact a law that allows the arrest of SVO members for carrying electronic devices while on duty. The evolving debate reflected concerns about the balance between operational effectiveness and individual rights within the armed forces.
Earlier remarks by Rogozin addressed the rationale behind permitting or restricting smartphones in the Northern Military District, highlighting ongoing tensions between technological flexibility, security considerations, and the practical needs of service members in demanding environments. The evolving discourse points to broader questions about the role of digital tools in modern operations and how they should be regulated within the military framework.