AFSPA Extended in Parts of Arunachal, Manipur, Nagaland

Why in news?

Union Home Ministry extended AFSPA for six more months in parts of Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims: AFSPA 1958 provisions (Sections 3, 4, 6), “disturbed area” declaration, Seventh Schedule entries on public order and armed forces.

Mains:

GS II: salient features of Indian Constitution (Articles 21, 355, 356), Centre–State relations. 

GS III: Security challenges in border areas, internal security, various security forces and their mandate, linkages between development and insurgency.

Latest developments 

• The Union Home Ministry has extended the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in parts of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland for another six months.
• Manipur: AFSPA covers the whole State except 13 police stations in five valley districts.
  • AFSPA has been applied in Manipur since 1981. Manipur, a former Union Territory, became a State in 1972.
• President’s Rule was imposed in Manipur on February 13, 2025 and revoked on February 4, 2026.
• The Manipur government had withdrawn AFSPA from all valley police stations between April 1, 2022 and April 1, 2023, citing improved security. It was lifted from the Imphal municipality area in 2004.
• Nagaland: extended for six months in nine districts and 21 police stations in five other districts.
• Arunachal Pradesh: three districts and three police stations in another district bordering Assam declared “disturbed areas” for six more months.
• Rollback trend: AFSPA was fully withdrawn from Tripura (2015) and Meghalaya (2018), and disturbed areas in Assam, Nagaland and Manipur were significantly reduced from April 2022, after the Oting incident (Mon district, Nagaland, December 2021) in which civilians were killed in a botched operation.
• Why the valley–hills split matters ?
  • Manipur’s valley districts (largely Meitei-inhabited) saw AFSPA withdrawn in 2022–23, while the hill districts (largely Naga and Kuki-Zo) remained under it. After the 2023 ethnic conflict, the Centre reimposed it in six valley police stations in 2024. The pattern of exemptions has itself become politically sensitive, as each community perceives security deployment differently.

What is AFSPA?

• The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 grants special powers to the armed forces to maintain public order in areas declared “disturbed”. 
• It grew out of a 1942 colonial ordinance against the Quit India Movement and was enacted to deal with the Naga insurgency. 
• A separate AFSPA (Jammu & Kashmir), 1990 applies in J&K; the Punjab and Chandigarh version (1983) lapsed in 1997.

Key provisions

• Section 3, disturbed area: the Governor of the State, the Administrator of a UT, or the Central Government can declare an area “disturbed” when use of armed forces in aid of civil power is necessary. The Centre’s power was added by a 1972 amendment, which critics see as diluting federalism.
• Section 4, special powers: an officer (even a non-commissioned officer) may, after due warning, fire upon or use force, even causing death, against persons acting in contravention of law or orders prohibiting assembly of five or more persons or carrying weapons; destroy arms dumps and hideouts; arrest without warrant on reasonable suspicion; and enter and search premises without warrant.
• Section 5: arrested persons must be handed over to the nearest police station with the least possible delay.
• Section 6, legal immunity: no prosecution, suit or legal proceeding against any person acting under the Act without prior sanction of the Central Government.

Constitutional basis

• Entry 2A, List I (added by 42nd Amendment, 1976): deployment of armed forces of the Union in aid of civil power in any State.
• Entry 1, List II: public order is a State subject, which is why State consent and Centre’s unilateral declaration power are contested.
• Article 355: duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance, often cited to justify AFSPA.
• Article 21: critics argue powers to kill and immunity from prosecution clash with the right to life and due process.

Judicial pronouncements

• Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998): Constitution Bench upheld the validity of AFSPA, but held that the declaration must be reviewed before six months expire, that Centre can declare without State consent (though State should be consulted), that force must be minimal, and that the Army’s do’s and don’ts are binding.
• Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) v. Union of India (2016): there is no absolute immunity; excessive or retaliatory force even in a disturbed area must be investigated. The SC ordered a CBI probe into alleged fake encounters in Manipur.
• The Santosh Hegde Commission (2013), appointed by the SC, found that the six Manipur encounters it examined were not genuine.

The core debate

Way Ahead

• The Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) recommended repeal of AFSPA and insertion of suitable provisions in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. 
• The Second ARC (5th Report, Public Order) endorsed repeal. 
• The Justice Verma Committee (2013) recommended that sexual offences by armed forces personnel be tried under ordinary criminal law.
• The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions (2012) also called for repeal.

Security must be pursued with accountability. Thus, AFSPA should be a temporary instrument, not a permanent governance tool.

Practice MCQs 

Q1. With reference to the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, consider the following statements:

1. Both the Central Government and the Governor of a State can declare an area as “disturbed” under the Act.
2. Prosecution of armed forces personnel for acts done under the Act requires prior sanction of the concerned State Government.
3. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Act.

How many of the statements given above are correct?

(a) Only one

(b) Only two

(c) All three

(d) None

Answer: (b). Statement 2 is incorrect: Section 6 requires sanction of the Central Government. Validity upheld in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights (1998).

Q2. Consider the following statements:

Statement I: A declaration of “disturbed area” under AFSPA is ordinarily notified for a period of six months at a time.

Statement II: The Supreme Court has held that the declaration of an area as “disturbed” must be reviewed before the expiry of six months.

Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

(a) Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II explains Statement I

(b) Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II does not explain Statement I

(c) Statement I is correct but Statement II is incorrect

(d) Statement I is incorrect but Statement II is correct

Answer: (a)

Mains Practice Question 

“Despite claims of improved security, AFSPA continues to be extended in parts of the North-East.” Critically examine the continued relevance of AFSPA in the light of judicial pronouncements and committee recommendations. Suggest a way forward. (15 marks, 250 words)