Armed Forces (Special) Powers Act (AFSPA)

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

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1980: The AFSPA was completely withdrawn from Mizoram in the 1980s.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.