Armed Forces (Special) Powers Act (AFSPA)

Why in the News?

Recently, the centre has extended AFSPA in four States (Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh) for another six months.

• The uncertainty around the culmination of the Naga peace process is one of the reasons.

Key Points:

Origin of AFSPA

• The Act in its original form was promulgated by the British in response to the Quit India movement in 1942. 
• Post Independence, AFSPA Act came into force in the context of increasing violence in the Northeastern States decades ago, which the State governments found difficult to control. 
• The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Bill was passed by both the Houses of Parliament and it was approved by the President on September 11, 1958. 
• It became known as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958.

Special Powers under AFSPA:

• 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.
• They have the authority to prohibit a gathering of five or more persons in an area.
• It gives armed forces powers to arrest individuals without warrants, on the basis of “reasonable suspicion”, and also search premises without warrants.
• The Act further 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.

What is a “Disturbed Area” under AFSPA act and who has the power to declare it?

• A disturbed area is one which is declared by notification under Section 3 of the AFSPA.
• An area can be disturbed due to differences or disputes between members of different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.
• The Central Government or the Governor of the State or administrator of the Union Territory can declare the whole or part of the State or Union Territory as a disturbed area.

AFSPA Implementation:

• AFSPA has been imposed on the Northeast states, Jammu & Kashmir, and Punjab during the militancy.
• It is effective in the whole of Nagaland, Assam, Manipur (excluding seven assembly constituencies of Imphal) and parts of Arunachal Pradesh. 
• 1980: The AFSPA was completely withdrawn from Mizoram in the 1980s.
• 2015: Tripura withdrew the AFSPA in 2015.
• 2018: The Centre revoked it in Meghalaya on April 1, 2018. Earlier, the AFSPA was effective in a 20 km area along the Assam-Meghalaya border.
• April 1, 2022: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and State governments had considerably reduced “disturbed areas” in Assam, Manipur, and Nagaland.

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

• Jeevan Reddy Committee: The Justice Jeevan Reddy Commission submitted its report in 2005, saying AFSPA had become a symbol of oppression and recommending its repeal. 
• Second ARC: The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, headed by Veeerapa Moily, endorsed these recommendations.

Concerns:

• AFSPA has been a controversial one, with human rights groups opposing it as being aggressive. 
• Multiple state and non-state armed actors have operated under AFSPA’s shadow.
  • For instance, in Assam in the 1990s, death squads — or “secret killers” as they were called — carried out a wave of extrajudicial killings. 
  • These could not have occurred without the cover provided by AFSPA’s disturbed area designation.
• In some parts of Northeast India, AFSPA is now routinely extended every six months. But there is little evidence that any meaningful review occurs at those times while taking a decision to extend AFSPA.
• The AFSPA has often been under the scanner for giving the armed forces personnel the “licence to kill”.

Way Forward:

• • Any force that operates in a counter-terrorism environment, and in the case of J&K, superimposed by proxy war, needs protection.
    • Therefore, any future amendment needs to cater to the protection of the armed forces operating in a disturbed area.
  • At the same time, protection for the armed forces must be accompanied by provisions that ensure responsibility and accountability, within the parameters of the law. 
  • It is for this reason that robust safeguards need to be incorporated into the existing or any new law.

• Specific suggestions could include:

• • Creating committees at the district level with representatives of the army, police, civil administration, and the public to report, assess and track complaints in the area. 
  • All investigations should be time-bound. Reasons for the delay should be communicated to the aggrieved. 
  • There is a need to keep detailed records of operations, to ensure suitable proof of conduct of forces and operational imperatives. 
  • All old cases of human rights violations should be fast-tracked and judgments communicated to the aggrieved.