Abstract
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), a law enacted back in 1958. It remains a highly debated topic in India. It grants special authority to the armed forces operating in regions the government deems “disturbed.” The prime intention is to further maintain the order and tackle insurgency, AFSPA has drawn significant criticism. Concerns revolve around the alleged human rights violations thereby the potential for misuse of power. The article here, takes a closer look at the Act’s origins, the specific powers it grants, how it’s implemented, the controversies it has sparked, and recent shifts in its application. The goal is to offer a well-rounded view of its necessity and overall impact.
Keywords
AFSPA; disturbed areas; public order; human rights; insurgency; accountability
Introduction
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act came about as a way to give the Indian armed forces more leverage in areas struggling with serious unrest or active insurgencies. Initially, it was rolled out in the Naga Hills of Assam in the late 1950s. Since then, its reach has extended to other states in the Northeast, as well as Jammu & Kashmir. The goal was to empower security forces to restore stability where civilian authorities were finding it difficult to cope. Due to that, AFSPA’s wide and large scope has turned it into one of India’s most argued-over pieces of legislation. The critics frequently question its effects on democracy, fundamental human rights, and the everyday lives of ordinary people.
Historical Context
In 1958, the Naga Hills region of Assam state. The government showcased the area as “disturbed” under the Section 3 of the Act. The move allowed the armed forces to take extraordinary steps to quell the unrest. Over the years, similar insurgencies led to AFSPA’s expansion into other northeastern states – Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Tripura. In the year 1990 the militancy was on the rise. It was prevalent in the region of Jammu & Kashmir as well. Subsequently, the Act’s roots , trace back to laws used by the British during India’s independence movement to suppress dissent. This connection has shown some to argue that AFSPA is more a relic of colonial oppression than a tool for modern and democratic governance.
Key Provisions of AFSPA
AFSPA empowers the armed forces with significant authority within “disturbed areas.” The Security personnel can use force, even lethal force, against individuals believed to be disrupting public order or carrying weapons. The individuals can be arrested without a warrant, based solely on suspicion. The Homes and other properties can be searched without prior approval, and anything suspected of being used unlawfully can be seized. The Security forces are shielded from legal action for their actions under AFSPA, unless the central government grants permission to prosecute. Although these provisions are meant to give security forces the freedom they need to operate, they have also sparked worries about unchecked power and a lack of accountability.
Implementation
The AFSPA is put into effect in regions declared as “disturbed areas” under Section 3 of the Act. The declaration can be made by either the central government or the state government, typically when local law enforcement is unable to maintain order due to widespread unrest or insurgency. Currently, AFSPA is in force in parts of Nagaland, Manipur (excluding the Imphal Municipal Council Area), Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir. Further the “disturbed area” status is supposed to be reviewed regularly. However, it often remains in place for extended periods due to ongoing security concerns. Critics argue that keeping AFSPA in place for so long normalizes the presence of the military and weakens democratic processes.
Criticism and Controversies
The AFSPA has faced strong criticism for allegedly enabling human rights abuses by security forces. There have been reports of unlawful killings, torture, forced disappearances, and sexual violence in areas where AFSPA is in effect. The examples are : The Malom Massacre (2000) in Manipur, where security forces killed ten civilians. The Pathribal Fake Encounter Case (2000) in Jammu & Kashmir, where five civilians were allegedly falsely labelled as militants and killed. These incidents have fuelled public protests and demands for justice. A major sticking point with AFSPA is the immunity it offers security personnel from prosecution unless the central government approves it. This has been described as fostering a culture where the security forces are not held responsible for their actions. Despite the numerous accusations of misconduct, very few cases have resulted in the convictions or even disciplinary measures. The presence of armed forces operating under AFSPA can create a climate of fear among local communities. Frequent patrols, curfews, and searches disrupt daily life and erode the sense of trust between residents and security personnel. Many prominent voices have called for AFSPA to be either repealed entirely or significantly reformed. The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee, in 2005, recommended that the Act be scrapped. Alternatively, they suggested it be replaced with a more humane law that balances security needs with the protection of human rights. However, successive governments have been hesitant to take decisive action on these recommendations.
Recent Developments
In recent years, there’s been a gradual reduction in AFSPA enforcement in some northeastern states, largely due to improvements in the security situation. In the year 2022, large areas of Nagaland, Assam, and Manipur were removed from AFSPA’s jurisdiction as insurgent activity decreased. For the first time since 1954, no army brigade was specifically deployed for counter-insurgency operations in certain areas of the Northeast.Army units that remained were repositioned closer to international borders rather than being stationed in civilian areas. These shifts reflect the changing security landscape, but they also highlight the difficulties in completely withdrawing AFSPA.
Arguments For and Against AFSPA
The supporters argue that AFSPA is vital for combating insurgency and protecting India’s territorial integrity. The Act gives armed forces the necessary authority to operate effectively in challenging and dangerous environments. In regions where the normal functions of government have broken down due to unrest or insurgency, AFSPA provides a means to restore stability.
Arguments Against AFSPA
The Critics argue that AFSPA enables the abuse of power and violates fundamental human rights. The long-term enforcement of AFSPA creates a militarized environment that is at odds with democratic principles. The Act marginalizes local government structures and weakens civilian oversight of security forces.
Conclusion
One of the conclusions is replacing AFSPA with a law that is more balanced, incorporating safeguards against misuse, could address many of the criticisms while still allowing for the maintenance of security. The reformation of the act would enable the
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer
lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY POOJA PARAMESWARAN
