Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) 1958

Context: AFSPA has recently been extended in four districts of Assam, following disturbances related to the situation in Bangladesh.

History of AFSPA

• British Ordinance of 1942: This ordinance was first introduced by the British during World War II to suppress the Indian independence movement.
• Initial Implementation (1958): It was first enforced in the Naga Hills to address the rising insurgencies led by the Naga National Council (NNC), aimed at restoring order during violent separatist movements.
• Expansion (1960s-1980s): The law was extended to other northeastern states, including Assam, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, and Meghalaya, in response to similar insurgencies.
• Jammu and Kashmir (1990): AFSPA was applied to Jammu and Kashmir to combat increased militancy and separatist activities, notably from groups like Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba.
• Amendments in 1972: The central government was empowered to declare any area as “disturbed” and impose AFSPA without requiring the approval of state governments.

Recent Developments

• Tripura (2015): AFSPA was withdrawn due to improvements in law and order and a decline in insurgency.
• Meghalaya (2018): The act was repealed as the state achieved relative peace and stability.
• Current Extensions (2024): AFSPA has been extended for six more months in parts of Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, effective from October 1, 2024.

Key Features of AFSPA

• Declaration of Disturbed Areas: Under Section 3, the governor, UT administrator, or the central government can declare areas as disturbed.
• Special Powers for Armed Forces: Section 4 authorizes armed forces to use force, including lethal action, against individuals engaged in unlawful activities.
• Arrest without Warrant: Authorities are empowered to arrest individuals without a warrant based on suspicion of their involvement in illegal activities.
• Search and Seizure: Armed forces are allowed to conduct searches without a warrant to facilitate swift action.
• Prohibition of Gatherings: AFSPA prohibits assemblies of five or more individuals in disturbed areas to prevent unrest.
• Immunity from Prosecution: Section 6 provides legal immunity to armed forces unless the central government sanctions prosecution.
• Periodic Review: AFSPA’s imposition is subject to periodic government review based on the law-and-order situation.

Positive Outcomes of AFSPA

• Operational Flexibility: AFSPA enables quick responses to security threats. For example, an operation in Nagaland in 2017 resulted in the elimination of key insurgents from the NSCN-K group.
• Legal Immunity: The act protects armed forces personnel from legal prosecution, allowing them to carry out their duties without fear of repercussions.
• National Security: AFSPA strengthens security in insurgency-prone areas, such as in Manipur, where operations have disrupted drug trafficking from the Golden Triangle.
• Deterrence: The act helps deter insurgent activities and bolsters border security.
• Political Stability: In regions where civilian governance is weak, AFSPA aids in restoring order, as seen in Assam, where the act facilitated elections.

Challenges of AFSPA

• Human Rights Concerns: More than 1,500 extrajudicial killings in Manipur have been attributed to AFSPA, according to Supreme Court data from 2020.
• Alienation: The continued presence of the armed forces often leads to mistrust and alienation among the local population.
• Prolonged Use: AFSPA has been in force for decades in some regions, like Nagaland, without significant improvement in the insurgency situation.
• Psychological Impact: The long-term presence of military forces can cause trauma and fear among local communities.
• Judicial Criticism: The Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling questioned the excessive use of force under AFSPA.

Way Forward

• Phased Withdrawal: As the security situation improves, AFSPA can be lifted. This has already happened in Tripura, Meghalaya, and parts of other northeastern states.
• Accountability: There should be independent investigations to ensure accountability. The 2005 Jeevan Reddy Committee recommended repealing AFSPA and replacing it with a more humane legal framework.
• Balancing Security and Rights: The Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling on “encounter killings” emphasized the importance of protecting human rights in AFSPA regions.
• Political Dialogue: Engaging in dialogue with insurgent groups can reduce the need for military action, as demonstrated by the 2015 Naga peace accord.
• Development Focus: Addressing the underlying causes of insurgency through economic development and infrastructure improvement is crucial for long-term peace.