The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) extended the ‘Disturbed Areas’ notification from April 1, 2025 under AFSPA in several parts of Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh for six months.

Implication of the extension

• The extension covers all of Manipur except areas under 13 police stations.
• In Arunachal Pradesh, AFSPA remains in effect in Tirap, Changlang, Longding, and three police stations in Namsai district.
• In Nagaland, the act has been extended to eight districts and 21 police stations across five other districts.

About AFSPA

• The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, grants special powers to the armed forces to maintain public order in “disturbed areas.”
• Origin of AFSPA: The law first came into effect in 1958 to deal with the uprising in the Naga Hills, followed by the insurgency in Assam. 
  • It is a reincarnation of the British-era legislation that was enacted to quell the protests during the Quit India movement, the AFSPA was issued by way of four ordinances in 1947.
  • The ordinances were replaced by an Act in 1948 and the present law effective in the Northeast was introduced in Parliament in 1958 by the then Home Minister, G.B. Pant.
  • It was known initially as the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958.
• Criteria for AFSPA Implementation
  • AFSPA is applied only in areas declared as “disturbed” under Section 3 of the Act.
  • Both the state and central governments can issue notifications declaring areas as disturbed.
  • In Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, the MHA periodically issues such notifications.
• Definition of ‘Disturbed Areas’
  • Defined under Section 3 of the Act, a “disturbed area” is one where the armed forces are deemed necessary to assist civil authorities in maintaining law and order.
  • Areas can be declared disturbed due to conflicts or disputes based on religion, race, language, region, or caste.
  • Once declared, the status remains for at least three months under The Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976.
• Special Powers of the Armed Forces
  • Authority to prohibit gatherings of five or more people.
  • Power to use force or open fire after issuing a warning if a person violates the law.
  • Right to arrest individuals without a warrant based on reasonable suspicion.
  • Power to search premises without a warrant and ban the possession of firearms.
  • Any person arrested must be handed over to the nearest police station along with a report.
• Legal Immunity for Armed Forces: Armed forces personnel cannot be prosecuted for actions taken under AFSPA unless the Union Government grants sanction.

Need for AFSPA

• Countering Insurgency: Ensures military intervention in areas facing insurgency or armed rebellion.
• Maintaining Law and Order: Provides security forces with legal backing to restore order in conflict-prone regions.
• Protecting National Security: Helps safeguard strategic regions against external and internal threats.
• Assisting Civil Administration: Strengthens the role of armed forces in areas where local law enforcement is unable to manage security challenges.

Concerns Raised Against AFSPA

• Justice Verma Report (2013) highlighted sexual violence by security forces in conflict areas.
• Recommended that such crimes be dealt with under ordinary criminal law.
• Urged a review of AFSPA and similar legal protocols to address human rights concerns.
• Emphasized the Supreme Court’s ruling that armed forces and police must not use excessive force, even under AFSPA.

Supreme Court Views on AFSPA

• Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India (1997): Upheld AFSPA’s constitutionality but ruled that deployment of armed forces must be reviewed every six months.
• Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) v. Union of India (2016): Held that armed forces cannot use excessive force in counter-insurgency operations and must be held accountable for human rights violations.
• Indrajit Barua v. State of Assam (1983): Stated that AFSPA should not be used as a cover for human rights abuses and called for greater judicial oversight.
• PUCL v. Union of India (1997): SC ruled that security forces must operate within legal limits and all deaths due to armed forces action must be investigated.

Jeevan Reddy Committee Recommendations on AFSPA (2004)

• Recommended repeal of AFSPA while incorporating essential provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.
• Deployment of Armed Forces:
  • The state government may request the Union government for deployment for up to six months.
  • The Union government can deploy forces without state request but must review the situation after six months and seek Parliament’s approval for extension.
• Operational Powers: Non-commissioned officers to retain the power to fire when necessary.
• Grievance Redressal: Independent grievances cell to be set up in each district where AFSPA is in force.

Current Status of AFSPA in India

• AFSPA is enforced in Jammu & Kashmir, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur (except Imphal), and parts of Arunachal Pradesh.
• The scope and duration of AFSPA depend on the security situation in the respective regions.

Way Forward

• Gradual Repeal and Legal Reform: AFSPA should be phased out in stable regions while integrating essential provisions into UAPA for handling security challenges.
• Strengthening Accountability Mechanisms: Establish independent grievance cells and ensure strict judicial oversight to prevent misuse of power by security forces.
• Enhanced Civil-Military Coordination: Improve coordination between armed forces and local administration to address security concerns with minimal disruption to civilian life.
• Periodic Review and Parliamentary Oversight: Regularly review the security situation and involve Parliament in decisions regarding the continuation or withdrawal of AFSPA.

DOWNLOAD PDF