Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958

Syllabus: GS3/Internal Security

Context

• The Centre has extended the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, in specified areas of Nagaland, Manipur and Arunachal for another six months.

What is AFSPA?

• The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 empowers the armed forces to operate in areas declared as “disturbed areas”.
• It grants special powers to security forces to maintain public order and combat insurgency.
• Major Provisions: 
  • The Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory, or the Central Government may declare an area as a “disturbed area”.
  • It grants special powers to armed forces, including use of force (even causing death under specified conditions), arrest without warrant, search without warrant, and destruction of arms dumps or militant hideouts.
  • No prosecution, suit, or legal proceeding can be initiated against armed forces personnel for actions taken under AFSPA without prior approval of the Central Government.
• AFSPA is currently enforced in parts of Manipur, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Assam, alongside the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Why has there been Insurgency in the North Eastern Region of India?

• Historical Factors: The region has a history of being distinct from the rest of India, both culturally and geographically and many indigenous communities have historically maintained a certain level of autonomy.
  • The integration of the region into the Indian state led to challenges in addressing local aspirations.
• Economic Marginalization: Some insurgent groups in the northeast have cited economic marginalization as a key grievance. 
• Borders and Connectivity: The region shares international borders with countries like Myanmar, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and China. This has contributed to issues related to cross-border movements, smuggling, and the presence of insurgent groups operating from neighboring countries.
• Political Alienation: The sense of being politically marginalized and not adequately represented in decision-making processes has led to discontent.
• Migration and Demographic Changes: Migration patterns, including the influx of people from other regions leading to demographic changes and creating tensions over issues related to land, resources, and cultural identity.
• Government Responses: The counter-insurgency operations, has at times led to human rights concerns and further fueled grievances among local populations.

Arguments in Favour of AFSPA

• Operational flexibility: AFSPA provides security forces with special powers in areas declared “disturbed”, enabling them to respond quickly to armed insurgency and serious security threats.
• Protection of personnel: It provides a legal framework for security personnel operating in difficult counter-insurgency environments.
• Prevention of escalation: Powers such as arrest without warrant and search enable security forces to act promptly against suspected insurgents and prevent escalations.
• Difficult operational environment: In conflict-affected areas, conventional policing mechanisms may face limitations, therefore,  AFSPA enables the armed forces to support civil authorities.
• Temporary security measure: The Act is linked to the declaration of an area as “disturbed”; therefore, its continuation can be reassessed when the security situation improves.

Arguments Against

• Concerns over human rights: Critics argue that the Act’s wide operational powers can increase the risk of excessive or disproportionate use of force and violations of fundamental rights.
• Limited accountability: Section 7 requires prior sanction of the Central Government for prosecution of personnel for acts done under the Act, which critics argue can make legal accountability difficult.
• Alienation of local population: Prolonged deployment can create mistrust between local communities and security forces, potentially undermining counter-insurgency efforts.
• Possibility of misuse: Broad powers of search, arrest and use of force may be misused if adequate operational oversight and safeguards are not maintained.
• Impact on federalism: Law and order is primarily a State subject under the Seventh Schedule, continued use of AFSPA at times raise concerns about the balance between Union and State powers.

Major Committees’s Recommendations on AFSPA

• Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005): Recommended the repeal of AFSPA and incorporation of its essential provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, along with stronger grievance redressal and accountability mechanisms.
• Santosh Hegde Commission (2013): It highlighted misuse of AFSPA provisions, and recommended greater accountability and periodic review of the Act.
• Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007): Recommended repeal of AFSPA, arguing that it had become a symbol of discrimination and alienation in affected regions.

Source: AIR