Context:

• The Ministry of Home Affairs extended the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in parts of Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh for another six months.

About AFSPA:

• Background: The Act in its original form was promulgated by the British in response to the Quit India movement in 1942. After Independence, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru decided to retain the Act, which was first brought in as an ordinance and then notified as an Act in 1958.AFSPA provides for special powers for the armed forces that can be imposed by the Centre or the Governor of a state, on the state or parts of it, after it is declared “disturbed’’ under Section 3.
• It has been used in areas where militancy has been prevalent.

• The Centre can take a decision to repeal AFSPA after getting a recommendation from the state government.
• Any person arrested or taken into custody may be handed over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station along with a report detailing the circumstances that led to the arrest.

What attempts have been made to repeal AFSPA in the past?

• 2000: Manipur activist Irom Sharmila began a hunger-strike, which would continue for 16 years, against AFSPA.
•  2005:  The Justice Jeevan Reddy Commission submitted its report in 2005, saying AFSPA had become a symbol of oppression and recommending its repeal. 
  • The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, headed by Veeerapa Moily, endorsed these recommendations.

Criticism against AFSPA:

• The AFSPA has been called draconian, as it gives sweeping powers to the armed forces such as:
  • It allows them to open fire, even causing death, against any person in contravention to the law or carrying arms and ammunition.
  • It gives them powers to arrest individuals without warrants, on the basis of “reasonable suspicion”, and also search premises without warrants.
  • It provides blanket impunity to security personnel involved in such operations: There can be no prosecution or legal proceedings against them without the prior approval of the Centre.

Supreme Court Views on AFSPA:

• In Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v Union of India, 1997), a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously upheld the AFSPA. 
• Time -Period: Although the court agreed that the Constitution did provide for deployment of armed forces in aid of civil power, it held that such deployment can be permitted for a “temporary period” and “until a situation of normalcy was restored”.
• Opinion of State Government: The court said that while declaring a region as “disturbed area”, the opinion of the state government must be taken and there must be a periodic review of the situation.
• Autonomy of State Administration: The conferment of the said power on the Central Government regarding declaration of areas to be disturbed areas does not, however, result in taking over of the state administration by the Army or by other armed forces of the Union,” the court outlined.
• Use of Minimum Force: The court also cautioned that the officer in the armed forces shall use minimum force required for effective action against the person/persons acting in contravention of the prohibitory order.

News Source: Hindustan times