ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)

1. ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT (AFSPA)

Context

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), enacted in 1958 to address insurgency in Northeast India, remains controversial. In September 2025, the Government extended AFSPA for six months—from October 2025 to March 2026—in parts of Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh. Supporters cite its importance for law and order in disturbed areas, while critics argue it undermines human rights due to its sweeping powers and immunity for armed forces.

Background and Current Status

• Definition: AFSPA is a law granting extraordinary powers to the armed forces in regions officially designated as Disturbed Areas.
   
• Objective: To empower security forces in countering insurgency, militancy, and armed rebellion where ordinary law and order measures are inadequate.
   
• Enactment: First introduced in 1958 to address conflicts in the Northeast.
   
• Authority: Under Section 3 of the Act, the Central Government can declare any region as “disturbed.”
   
• Review Mechanism: AFSPA is subject to review every six months to decide whether the disturbed area status should continue.
   

Current Coverage (as of October 2025):

• Manipur: Extended across the state except in 13 police station areas.
   
• Nagaland: In force across nine districts and 21 police stations.
   
• Arunachal Pradesh: Applicable in specific districts bordering Assam.
   

Regions where AFSPA has been revoked:

• Tripura (2015) – fully withdrawn.
   
• Meghalaya (2018) – completely lifted.
   

Special Powers Granted to Armed Forces

AFSPA equips the armed forces with sweeping powers to maintain control in disturbed regions:

1. Shoot-to-Kill Authority: Security personnel can use force, including lethal force, against individuals violating prohibitory orders.
    
2. Arrest Without Warrant: Armed forces may arrest any individual suspected of committing or about to commit a cognizable offense.
    
3. Search Without Warrant: Houses, buildings, or premises may be searched without prior judicial authorization.
    
4. Immunity from Prosecution: Personnel are shielded from prosecution without prior sanction of the central government, ensuring wide-ranging legal protection.
    

Criticism and Controversy

AFSPA has attracted consistent criticism from human rights activists, civil society groups, and international organizations.

Major Concerns:

• Human Rights Violations: Allegations of extrajudicial killings, fake encounters, custodial deaths, and misidentifications.
   
• Excessive Powers: Critics argue provisions under Section 4 (Clause A & C) and Section 6 provide near-absolute impunity.
   
• Public Protests: Notable long-term protests include Irom Sharmila’s 16-year hunger strike in Manipur, demanding repeal of AFSPA.
   

Reform Recommendations

Several committees and commissions have reviewed AFSPA and suggested reforms:

• Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005): Recommended repealing AFSPA, calling it a law with no place in a modern democracy. Suggested incorporating necessary provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
   
• Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007): Advocated replacing AFSPA with a more humane legal framework to balance security concerns with human rights.
   
• Supreme Court (2016 & later rulings): While upholding the Act’s constitutionality, the Court mandated strict checks, directing that every use of force must be subject to judicial scrutiny, and that AFSPA must be reviewed every six months in consultation with states.
   

Arguments in Favor of AFSPA

Despite criticism, proponents stress that AFSPA plays a crucial role in counterinsurgency operations:

• Essential in Disturbed Areas: Where insurgency and militancy overwhelm state police, AFSPA ensures the armed forces can act swiftly.
   
• Temporary Measure: Advocates highlight that the law is not permanent but applicable only in notified disturbed regions.
   
• National Security Imperative: Helps the military secure border states like Nagaland and Manipur, which are prone to cross-border infiltration and militant activities.
   
• Operational Freedom: Provides armed forces the legal backing necessary to operate effectively in hostile and uncertain conditions.
   

Conclusion

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) grants security forces in disturbed areas authority to use force, arrest without warrants, and search premises, with legal immunity. It is debated for balancing security and human rights in India.