The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA)

GS 3 -Internal Security

is a law enacted by the Indian Parliament to grant special powers to the armed forces in “disturbed areas” to maintain public order. It has been a subject of significant debate due to its implications on human rights and security.

Key Features of AFSPA

1. Granting Special Powers:
   • The Act allows armed forces personnel to take specific actions such as:
     • Use force, including deadly force, if public order is threatened.
     • Arrest individuals without a warrant.
     • Search premises without a warrant.
     • Destroy arms, shelters, or storage used by insurgents.
2. Disturbed Area Declaration:
   • An area is declared “disturbed” by the Governor of the State or the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act.
   • Factors for declaration include riots, insurgency, or conflicts threatening public safety.
3. Protection from Prosecution:
   • Armed forces personnel are immune from legal action for acts performed under the Act unless explicitly sanctioned by the Central Government.

Historical Background

• Origins:
  • AFSPA was first enacted in 1958 to address insurgency in the northeastern states of India.
• Implementation Areas:
  • Initially applied in Assam and Manipur, it was later extended to other northeastern states and Jammu & Kashmir (from 1990).

States/Regions Under AFSPA

• Northeastern states like Assam, Nagaland, Manipur (except Imphal municipal areas), and parts of Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya.
• Jammu and Kashmir until its revocation from many regions post-2019.

Arguments in Favor of AFSPA

1. Maintaining Law and Order: Essential in regions affected by insurgency, terrorism, and armed conflict.
2. Operational Freedom: Provides armed forces the necessary powers to act decisively in volatile situations.
3. National Security: Ensures sovereignty and territorial integrity by curbing anti-national activities.

Arguments Against AFSPA

1. Human Rights Violations: Allegations of misuse, including fake encounters, torture, and custodial deaths.
2. Lack of Accountability: Protection from prosecution can lead to impunity.
3. Prolonged Application: Continuous application without resolving the root causes of conflict.
4. Impact on Civilians: Harsh measures often alienate local populations.

Judicial and Expert Views

1. Supreme Court on AFSPA:
   • In the Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights vs Union of India (1997) case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of AFSPA but emphasized strict adherence to guidelines.
2. Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005):
   • Recommended repealing AFSPA, arguing it was regressive and should be replaced with a more humane law.
3. Justice Verma Committee (2013):
   • Called for greater accountability of armed forces under AFSPA in cases of sexual violence.

Recent Developments

1. Partial Revocation:
   • In 2022, AFSPA was revoked in parts of Assam, Nagaland, and Manipur following improvements in the security situation.
2. Continued Protests:
   • Activists like Irom Sharmila (the “Iron Lady of Manipur”) have campaigned for decades against AFSPA, citing human rights concerns.

Conclusion

While AFSPA serves as a critical tool for maintaining order in disturbed regions, its prolonged use and alleged misuse have raised significant ethical and political questions. A balanced approach involving dialogue, development, and human rights considerations is essential for addressing the underlying issues in conflict-prone areas.