Why in the news?

  • The Union Home Ministry extended the  Armed Forces (Special  Powers) Act in parts of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh,  and Nagaland for six  months.

Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA)

  • Origin
    • Rooted in colonial legislation: Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1942.
    • Enacted in 1958 (North-East), later extended to Jammu & Kashmir in 1990.
  • What is it?: AFSPA is a law granting special powers to the armed forces in “disturbed areas” to maintain public order.
  • Objectives
    • To assist civil administration in controlling insurgency, militancy, and separatist movements.
    • Restore peace, sovereignty, and rule of law in conflict-affected regions.
  • Key Provisions
    • Declaration of Disturbed Area: Done by Governor of a state or Central Government under Section 3.
    • Special Powers to Armed Forces (Section 4):
      • Use force, even to the extent of causing death, against persons violating law or carrying arms.
      • Arrest without warrant on mere suspicion.
      • Enter and search any premises without warrant.
    • Immunity (Section 6): No prosecution of security personnel without prior sanction of Central Government.
  • Judicial & Committee Views
    • Supreme Court in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1997):
      • Upheld constitutionality of AFSPA.
      • Laid down guidelines for its implementation.
    • Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005): Recommended repeal, called it “highly undesirable”.
    • Second ARC (2007): Suggested replacing AFSPA with a more humane law.
    • Justice Hegde Commission (2013): Found AFSPA widely abused in Manipur.
  • Criticisms
    • Alleged human rights violations: custodial killings, torture, disappearances.
    • Excessive concentration of power → undermines democratic accountability.
    • Lack of judicial oversight due to requirement of Central sanction for prosecution.
    • Viewed as a colonial relic inconsistent with modern constitutional values.
  • Significance
    • Security Perspective: Essential for counter-insurgency and maintaining sovereignty.
    • Democratic Perspective: Balancing national security with human rights and federalism remains a challenge.