Human rights activists constantly highlight the view that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958…

Question

Human rights activists constantly highlight the view that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) is a draconian act leading to cases of human rights abuses by the security forces. What sections of AFSPA are opposed by the activists? Critically evaluate the requirement with reference to the view held by the Apex Court.

Ghissu Editorial · Accepted Answer

Activists oppose AFSPA Sections 3, 4 and 6 for open-ended disturbed-area declarations, lethal force, warrantless arrest and the sanction bar, yet the Supreme Court upheld the Act while denying it impunity. Naga People's Movement (1997) imposed limits; the EEVFAM case (2016) barred excessive force even in disturbed areas.

**Introduction**

Enacted in 1958 against the Naga insurgency, AFSPA gives soldiers in "disturbed areas" police powers without judicial supervision. Irom Sharmila's 16-year fast (2000-2016) made it the emblem of what activists call legalised impunity.

**Sections of AFSPA Opposed by Activists**

1. **Section 3, disturbed areas**: The Governor or Centre declares an area "disturbed" on its own opinion, with no statutory time limit, so declarations ran for decades in Nagaland and Manipur.
2. **Section 4, force, arrest and search**: Even a non-commissioned officer may use force "even to the causing of death" against those defying a ban on assemblies, and troops may arrest and search without warrant.
3. **Section 6, sanction to prosecute**: Prosecution needs the Centre's prior sanction, rarely given, so the Thangjam Manorama killing (2004) never reached a criminal trial.

**Requirement Evaluated Against the Apex Court's View**

SKETCH: forcefield | Is AFSPA Still Required?
center: AFSPA in disturbed areas
driving: Active insurgency, Porous borders, Article 355 duty, Legal cover for troops
restraining: Custodial abuse, Fake encounters, Local alienation, Weak accountability

1. **Upheld with limits**: In Naga People's Movement of Human Rights (1997) a Constitution Bench upheld the Act but required six-monthly review of declarations, minimum force and binding Army Dos and Don'ts.
2. **No absolute immunity**: In the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association case (2016) the Court held excessive force barred even in disturbed areas and later ordered a CBI probe into Manipur encounters.
3. **A shrinking need**: Tripura (2015) and Meghalaya (2018) ended AFSPA, and large parts of Assam, Nagaland and Manipur were de-notified from April 2022 after the Oting killings.

**Conclusion**

AFSPA remains a legitimate but exceptional tool, upheld by the Court yet denied impunity. Confined to active insurgency, under the 1997 safeguards and with the accountability the Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) sought, it can secure the border states without sacrificing Article 21.

Model answer

Practise this question

Security Forces and Agencies1 question

Ghissu