AFSPA – Significance & Concerns – Explained Pointwise

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

What is the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA)?

• AFSPA is a central law that gives special powers to the armed forces in areas officially declared as “disturbed” to help them tackle insurgency and serious internal security threats.
• The primary objective of AFSPA is to provide the armed forces (including the Army, Air Force, and paramilitary forces) with special legal immunity and powers necessary to control internal conflict, militancy, and insurgency in regions where the civil administration and police are deemed incapable of maintaining law and order.
• AFSPA was first promulgated in 1942, by Linlithgow, in response to the Quit India Movement in 1942. Its aim was “to confer special powers upon certain officers of the armed forces.
• After Independence, the Act was retained by the ordinance enacted in 1958, to control increasing violence in the North-eastern States, which the State governments found difficult to control.
• In simple terms, AFSPA gives armed forces the power to maintain public order in “disturbed areas”.

Present Status of AFSPA:

What are its key provisions?

1. Declaration of “disturbed area” (Section 3):
   • The Governor of a state, the Administrator of a Union Territory, or the Central Government can declare any area “disturbed” if the situation requires deployment of the armed forces to aid civil power.
   • Once so notified, the special powers under AFSPA apply in that area.
2. Special powers of the armed forces (Section 4): In a notified disturbed area, any commissioned, warrant, non‑commissioned officer or equivalent rank can:
   • Use force, even to the extent of causing death, after giving due warning, against persons:
     • acting in contravention of law prohibiting assembly of five or more persons, or
     • carrying weapons or things capable of being used as weapons or explosives.
   • Destroy arms dumps, fortified positions, shelters or training camps from which armed attacks are made or likely to be made.
   • Arrest without warrant anyone who has committed, is suspected of having committed, or is about to commit a cognisable offence, using necessary force.
   • Enter and search any premises without warrant to make such arrests or recover arms, ammunition, or explosives.
3. Duties after arrest (Section 5): Any person arrested and any seized property must be handed over to the nearest police station “with the least possible delay,” so that normal criminal procedure can then follow.
4. Legal protection/immunity (Section 6): No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding can be instituted against any person acting under AFSPA, except with the prior sanction of the Central Government. This clause is intended to protect personnel acting in good faith during operations, but is also the main focus of human‑rights criticism.

What is the significance of AFSPA in maintaining internal security in India?

1. Enables deployment in high‑risk “disturbed areas”: AFSPA allows the Centre or Governor to declare an area “disturbed,” enabling the armed forces to aid civil authorities where police and local administration cannot control violence or insurgency.
2. Provides operational flexibility to forces: Powers to use force after warning, arrest without warrant, and conduct searches and seizures allow the army/paramilitary to react quickly and pre‑empt threats such as ambushes, armed mobs, or militant movements.
3. Strengthens state capacity in conflict zones: In border and remote regions with difficult terrain and weak policing, AFSPA is seen as necessary to secure roads, infrastructure, elections, and civilian life against insurgent or terrorist groups.
4. Legal protection for personnel: Requirement of prior central sanction for prosecution under AFSPA is argued to protect soldiers from vexatious litigation and allow them to act decisively in life‑threatening situations.
5. National security and territorial integrity: The Act is justified by governments as essential to preserve sovereignty and integrity in regions facing secessionist, insurgent or cross‑border militant movements.

What are the major concerns and criticisms associated with the implementation of AFSPA?

1. Human rights violations: Wide powers to shoot, arrest without warrant, and search are seen as enabling extrajudicial killings, torture, enforced disappearances, rape, and harassment of civilians in states like Manipur, Nagaland, J&K and others.​ Human rights groups, UN experts and civil society describe AFSPA as “draconian” and incompatible with international human-rights norms.
2. Legal immunity and lack of accountability: Section 6 requires prior central government sanction before prosecuting armed forces personnel, which is rarely granted, leading to near‑impunity even in serious abuse cases.​ This undermines rule of law and victims’ access to justice, and is seen as violating fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.
3. Violation of fundamental rights and militarisation: Critics say AFSPA effectively suspends normal constitutional protections in “disturbed areas,” normalising prolonged militarisation and eroding civil liberties such as the right to life, liberty, movement and expression.​ Long-term deployment of the army for internal policing is argued to blur civil-military boundaries and weaken civilian institutions.​
4. Misuse, excess force and distrust: Supreme Court judgments have noted that any use of excessive or retaliatory force is illegal even under AFSPA, but multiple inquiries have documented fake encounters and misuse, deepening local resentment and distrust of the state.​ Critics argue that such practices fuel alienation and may actually worsen insurgency instead of resolving it.
5. Committee recommendations for repeal/reform:
   • Jeevan Reddy Committee and the Second Administrative Reforms Commission both recommended repeal of AFSPA, with key provisions to be shifted into a more rights‑compliant law like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
   • Other bodies, like the Santosh Hegde Commission and Justice Verma Committee, have called for strong review, tighter oversight and removal of blanket immunity. ​

What are the major recommendations of various committees and commissions, along with key Supreme Court judgments, concerning AFSPA?

What should be the way forward regarding the continued application of AFSPA?

1. Phased Withdrawal and Review:
   • Withdraw AFSPA from areas where normalcy has returned (e.g. parts of J&K, Northeast) after security assessments, as done in Tripura (2015) and Meghalaya (2018).​
   • Mandate periodic 6-month reviews by Parliament or an independent body, with automatic sunset clauses for notifications.
     

     Approach	Pros	Cons
     Full repeal	Ends impunity, restores rights	May weaken counter-insurgency in active conflict zones.
     Targeted Reform	Balances security & rights.	Requires political will, implementation capacity.
     Phased Withdrawal	Builds trust, tests normalcy.	Risk of resurgence if premature.

2. Reforms to Existing Law:
   • Amend Section 6 to make prior sanction faster and more transparent (e.g. time-bound decisions, judicial oversight), and allow prosecution for grave human rights violations without sanction.​
   • Strengthen Section 5 to ensure arrested persons are handed to police within 24 hours, with mandatory video recording of operations.​
   • Incorporate Supreme Court guidelines: mandatory FIRs and investigations for all deaths in encounters, independent magisterial inquiries.
3. Institutional Strengthening:
   • Create a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)-monitored oversight mechanism for AFSPA operations, with local grievance cells as recommended by the Jeevan Reddy Committee.​
   • Enhance training for armed forces on human rights, minimal force, and distinction between combatants and civilians.
4. Long-term Alternatives:
   • Shift non-combat powers (arrest, search) to police and paramilitary under UAPA or CrPC, reserving army for active combat only.​
   • Invest in development, policing capacity, and peace-building in disturbed areas to reduce need for military deployment.
5. Addressing Root Causes: AFSPA is a tool to control symptoms, not resolve conflict. Sustainable stability requires political negotiation, political integration, socio-economic development, and resolving identity/ethnic disputes through dialogue.

Conclusion: AFSPA should be viewed as an exceptional security measure rather than a permanent governance mechanism. By strengthening local civil law enforcement, enforcing strict accountability for operational excesses, implementing judicial and commission recommendations, and prioritizing political dialogue, India can transition away from extraordinary martial powers toward normalized civil governance.