What's New :
GS Mains PYQ Advance, Click Here
27th September 2025 (11 Topics)

Extension of AFSPA in Northeast

Context:

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

AFSPA and Internal Security Concerns

Present Extension of AFSPA

  • In Manipur: AFSPA extended in the whole State except in 13 police station limits across five valley districts, including Imphal, Lamphel, Singjamei, and Thoubal.
  • In Nagaland: AFSPA extended in nine districts (Dimapur, Mon, Kiphire, etc.) and 21 police station jurisdictions across five districts.
  • In Arunachal Pradesh: Declared “disturbed areas” include Tirap, Changlang, Longding districts, and parts of Namsai district bordering Assam

Powers under AFSPA

  • Extraordinary Authority: Security forces may use lethal force against persons contravening the law in disturbed areas.
  • Arrest and Search: Enables arrest without warrant and search of premises on suspicion.
  • Legal Immunity: Personnel are protected from prosecution unless sanctioned by the Union government.

Contextual Issues

  • Security Imperatives: Northeast India has long witnessed insurgency, ethnic violence, and cross-border militancy.
  • Human Rights Concerns: AFSPA is often criticized for arbitrary use of power, custodial deaths, and alleged extrajudicial killings.
  • Judicial and Committee Views: The Supreme Court in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India (1997) upheld AFSPA’s constitutionality but emphasized safeguards. The Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) recommended its repeal.

Significance of AFSPA

  • Provides operational flexibility to the armed forces in insurgency-hit regions.
  • Maintains territorial integrity in border areas affected by external and internal threats.
  • Acts as a deterrent against insurgent and secessionist groups.

Concerns and Criticism

  • Perceived as draconian due to sweeping powers of arrest, search, and use of force.
  • Weakens the accountability of armed forces, as prior sanction is needed for prosecution.
  • Alienates the local population, undermining trust in democratic governance.

Committees and Recommendations

  • Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005): Recommended repeal of AFSPA and incorporation of essential provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
  • Second ARC (2007): Suggested review of AFSPA’s continuance with safeguards.
  • Supreme Court Guidelines (2016): Any encounter killings under AFSPA must be subject to independent investigation.

Way Forward

  • Review and Rationalisation: Limit AFSPA to genuinely disturbed pockets rather than blanket application.
  • Strengthen Civil Policing: Enhance capacity of local police to reduce long-term dependence on the armed forces.
  • Time-Bound Oversight: Independent review committees at State level to periodically assess the necessity of AFSPA.
  • Balancing Act: Safeguarding national security while ensuring human rights protection through stronger institutional checks.

Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958

  • Enacted for the Naga Hills in Assam, later extended to other “disturbed areas.”
  • Declares an area “disturbed” if use of armed forces is considered necessary to maintain public order.
  • Criticised by human rights organisations, both national and international, as inconsistent with democratic values.
  • Supported by security agencies as indispensable in counter-insurgency operations.

Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976

  • Provides legal framework for declaration of disturbed areas and special trial mechanisms.

 

PYQ:

“The AFSPA gives extraordinary powers to the armed forces in disturbed areas but also invites strong criticism for potential misuse. Discuss in light of recent recommendations on its review.”  (2015)

X

Verifying, please be patient.

Enquire Now