Afspa: balancing national security and human rights

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has once again extended the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) for another six months in parts of Nagaland, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh, effective from October 2025. This decision, while reflecting the government’s assessment of the prevailing security situation, brings back into focus the contentious debate surrounding this powerful law. While its operational area has shrunk significantly over the past decade, its continuation in insurgency-affected regions underscores the persistent tension between national security imperatives and the protection of fundamental human rights.

The latest extension in late 2025 continues a policy of careful, area-specific application. In Nagaland, AFSPA applies to eight districts and the jurisdictions of 21 police stations in five other districts. Similarly, in Arunachal Pradesh, it covers the Tirap, Changlang, and Longding districts and specific police stations in Namsai district. In Manipur, which has been roiled by ethnic conflict, the “disturbed area” status was extended for one year in September 2025, excluding 19 police station areas in the Imphal Valley, demonstrating a nuanced approach by the government.

Fun Fact: The AFSPA is not a modern invention. Its legislative DNA can be traced back to the British colonial era, specifically the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1942, which was promulgated to suppress the Quit India Movement.

What is a ‘Disturbed Area’?

The foundation of AFSPA’s application is the declaration of an area as “disturbed”. Under Section 3 of the Act, this declaration can be made by the Central Government, the Governor of the State, or the administrator of a Union Territory. A region is deemed disturbed when it is considered to be in such a disturbed or dangerous condition that the use of armed forces in aid of the civil power is necessary. This declaration gives the military a broad mandate to operate.

The Extraordinary Powers of AFSPA

The core of the controversy lies in the sweeping powers granted to the armed forces under Section 4 of the Act. These powers allow military personnel in a disturbed area to take actions that would be illegal in any other circumstance.

To remember these key powers, one can use the following mnemonic:

Mnemonic: FADS

• Fire upon or use force
• Arrest without warrant
• Destroy structures
• Search without warrant

Analogy: Declaring a “disturbed area” under AFSPA is like creating a localized, indefinite state of exception, where the normal rules of justice and accountability are suspended for the military in the name of public order.

A critical and highly debated provision is Section 6, which provides a degree of legal immunity to personnel. It states that no prosecution, suit, or other legal proceeding can be instituted against any person for actions taken under the Act, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Critics argue this creates a shield of impunity, making it exceedingly difficult to hold soldiers accountable for alleged excesses.

Statistic: AFSPA was once in effect across large swathes of Northeast India. However, it was completely lifted from Meghalaya in 2018, Tripura in 2015, and Mizoram in the 1980s, reflecting improved security conditions.

Critical Policy Appraisal

The continued use of AFSPA presents a classic governance dilemma, balancing the state’s duty to protect its integrity against its responsibility to protect its citizens’ rights.

Analytical Lens: UPSC Focus (Mains & Prelims)

Conceptual Basis

The legal framework for AFSPA is rooted in the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958. Its constitutional justification is often linked to Article 355 of the Constitution, which imposes a duty on the Union to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance.

UPSC Integration: Connecting the Dots

• Polity & Governance: The Act is a flashpoint in the study of Federalism (Union’s power in state matters), Fundamental Rights (infringement of Articles 14, 19, and 21), and Judicial Review (Supreme Court’s role in checking executive power, as in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India).
• Internal Security: AFSPA is a central theme in topics like insurgency in the Northeast, cross-border terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir, and the overall counter-insurgency doctrine of India.
• Ethics & Human Rights (GS Paper IV): The Act raises profound ethical questions about means versus ends, the moral cost of security operations, and the conflict between state security and individual liberty.

Future Impact & Policy Relevance

The long-term trajectory for AFSPA appears to be one of gradual rollback. As security improves and local police forces become more capable, the reliance on the military and, by extension, AFSPA, is likely to decrease. However, its complete repeal remains a politically sensitive issue. The future policy relevance will hinge on India’s ability to resolve long-standing insurgencies through political dialogue and development, not just security action. The Act will remain a critical case study in the challenges of democratic governance in conflict zones.

Prelims Practice MCQ

Question: The committee that recommended the complete repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, describing it as “a symbol of oppression” and “highly disliked by the people,” was the: (a) Sarkaria Commission (b) Jeevan Reddy Committee (c) Santosh Hegde Commission (d) Punchhi Commission

Answer: (b) Jeevan Reddy Committee Explanation: In 2005, the five-member Jeevan Reddy Committee, appointed by the UPA government, submitted its report recommending the complete repeal of AFSPA. It suggested that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) could be amended to include the necessary provisions to deal with insurgency.

Mains Sample Question

Question: The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958, is often described as a “necessary evil” to combat insurgency. Critically analyze the provisions of the Act and discuss whether its continuation in ‘disturbed areas’ is justified in light of recent security developments and judicial pronouncements. (15 Marks, 250 Words)

Mind Map Outline (Revision Structure)

• Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958
  • Core Objective: To empower armed forces to maintain public order in ‘Disturbed Areas’.
  • Legal & Constitutional Framework:
    • Primary Legislation: AFSPA, 1958.
    • Constitutional Justification: Article 355 (Union’s duty to protect states from internal disturbance).
    • Historical Roots: Armed Forces Special Powers Ordinance of 1942 (British India).
  • Mechanism of Application:
    • Section 3: Declaration of ‘Disturbed Area’
      • By whom: Central Government, Governor, or Administrator.
      • Condition: When the use of armed forces in aid of civil power is deemed necessary.
  • Key Provisions & Powers (Mnemonic: FADS):
    • Section 4: Special Powers
      • Fire upon or use lethal force.
      • Arrest without a warrant.
      • Destroy arms dumps and fortified structures.
      • Search premises without a warrant.
    • Section 6: Legal Immunity
      • Requires prior sanction from the Central Government for prosecution of personnel.
      • Major point of contention and criticism.
  • Current Status & Recent Developments (as of late 2025):
    • Geographical Spread: In effect in parts of Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, and J&K.
    • Recent Action: Six-month extension from October 2025 in specific districts of the Northeast.
    • Policy Trend: Gradual, area-by-area withdrawal from peaceful regions (“shrinking footprint”).
  • Critical Appraisal & Debate:
    • Arguments Against (Criticisms):
      • Allegations of severe human rights violations.
      • Creates a culture of impunity and undermines rule of law.
      • Alienates the local population, fueling further conflict.
      • Key Reports: Jeevan Reddy Committee (recommended repeal), Santosh Hegde Commission (highlighted abuses).
    • Arguments For (Justifications):
      • Deemed essential for effective counter-insurgency operations.
      • Boosts the morale of armed forces operating in hostile environments.
      • Upheld as constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court (Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. UoI), with safeguards.
  • UPSC Focus & Inter-Topic Linkages:
    • Polity: Federalism, Fundamental Rights (Articles 14, 19, 21), Judicial Review.
    • Internal Security: Northeast Insurgency, Counter-terrorism strategy.
    • Ethics (GS-IV): State Security vs. Individual Rights.