SYLLABUS

GS-3: Role of External State and Non-State Actors in Creating Challenges to Internal Security; Linkages between development and spread of extremism.

Context: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has extended the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958, in specified areas of Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh for another six months from 1 October 2026, following a review of the security situation.

More on the News

• Manipur: The disturbed-area declaration has been extended across the State, except areas under the jurisdiction of 13 police stations in five districts.
• Nagaland: AFSPA has been extended in nine districts—Dimapur, Niuland, Chümoukedima, Mon, Kiphire, Noklak, Phek, Peren and Meluri—and in specified areas under 21 police stations in five other districts.
• Arunachal Pradesh: It continues in Tirap, Changlang and Longding districts, besides specified areas under three police stations in Namsai district along the Assam border.

Understanding AFSPA, 1958

• Objective: Enacted in 1958, AFSPA enables certain special powers to be conferred on the armed forces in areas declared “disturbed”, where the situation is considered sufficiently disturbed or dangerous to require their use in aid of civil power.
• Declaration of a Disturbed Area: Under Section 3, the Central Government, Governor of a State or Administrator of a Union Territory may, through an official notification, declare the whole or part of a State/UT as a “disturbed area” when the statutory conditions are met.
• Special powers and safeguards: In a disturbed area, authorised armed-forces personnel may, subject to statutory conditions, use force, including lethal force in specified circumstances, arrest without warrant and search without warrant.
• Arrested persons must be handed over to the nearest police station with the least possible delay.
• Legal protection: Prior Central Government sanction is required for instituting prosecution, suit or other legal proceedings against a person for acts done or purportedly done in exercise of powers under the Act.
• Constitutional setting: Although public order and police fall within the State List, the Constitution provides for deployment of Union armed forces in aid of civil power. Article 355 also casts a duty on the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance.
• Jammu & Kashmir: J&K is governed by the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990, a separate legislation from the 1958 Act.

Present Status of AFSPA

• Northeast: AFSPA is currently in force in specified areas of Manipur, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam, with the extent of application varying from entire districts to specific police-station jurisdictions.
• Assam: AFSPA is currently in force in Assam in 3 districts, namely Tinsukia, Charaideo and Sivasagar (withdrawn from Dibrugarh from April 1, 2025). The notification for Assam is issued by the State government.
• Mizoram: AFSPA is not presently in force. AFSPA was withdrawn from Mizoram in 1986 following the Mizo Peace Accord. Mizoram transitioned to full Statehood in 1987.
• Tripura and Meghalaya: AFSPA has been completely withdrawn from Tripura in 2015 and Meghalaya in 2018, illustrating that its geographical application can be reduced or withdrawn as security conditions improve.

Judicial Positions on AFSPA

• Inderjit Barua v. State of Assam (1983): The Supreme Court recognised the power to declare an area “disturbed”, but such a declaration cannot be arbitrary and must be based on objective considerations.
• Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1997): The Court upheld the constitutional validity of AFSPA while requiring periodic review of disturbed-area declarations and safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power. It also emphasised that the armed forces operate in aid of civil power.
• EEVFAM v. Union of India (2016): The Court held that AFSPA does not confer blanket immunity on armed forces personnel and that allegations of extra-judicial killings require investigation in accordance with law.

Concerns Related to AFSPA

• Extensive coercive powers: Powers relating to use of force, arrest and search without warrant raise concerns regarding proportionality, potential misuse and protection of civil liberties.
• Accountability: The requirement of prior Central Government sanction for legal proceedings has generated concerns about access to effective remedies for alleged violations. The experience of the Oting killings in Nagaland also brought renewed attention to the practical difficulties surrounding prosecution of personnel operating under AFSPA.
• Prolonged application: Repeated extensions can raise questions about whether exceptional security measures remain necessary in particular areas, particularly when conditions differ significantly within a State.
• Civil–military balance: Continued reliance on extraordinary powers should be accompanied by effective civilian administration, ordinary policing and institutional accountability.

Suggestions/Committee Recommendations

• Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee (2004–05): Recommended repeal of AFSPA and incorporation of appropriate provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, along with stronger grievance-redressal and accountability mechanisms.
• Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007): Recommended repeal of AFSPA, observing that its continued application had contributed to perceptions of discrimination and alienation in affected regions.
• Justice J.S. Verma Committee (2013): Recommended that the protection under AFSPA should not require prior sanction for prosecution in cases involving specified sexual offences against women by armed-forces personnel.
• Santosh Hegde Commission (2013): A Supreme Court-appointed commission examined six alleged extra-judicial killings in Manipur and found that the encounters examined were not genuine, highlighting the need for greater accountability in counter-insurgency operations.