Human rights activists constantly highlight the view that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) is a draconian act leading to cases of human rights abuses by the security forces. What sections of AFSPA are opposed by the activists? Critically evaluate the requirement with reference to the view held by the Apex Court.

AFSPA and the human-rights critique

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 empowers the armed forces operating in areas declared 'disturbed' to maintain public order. Human-rights activists argue that its sweeping powers, coupled with immunity, enable abuses in the North-East and Jammu and Kashmir.

Sections opposed by activists

• Section 3: allows declaration of an area as 'disturbed', often without judicial review or periodic scrutiny.
• Section 4: permits a security officer to fire upon, even causing death, arrest without warrant and search premises on suspicion.
• Section 6: bars prosecution of personnel without prior sanction of the Central Government, seen as granting near-immunity.

The Apex Court's view

In Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998) the Supreme Court upheld the Act's constitutionality but laid down safeguards and directed adherence to the Dos and Don'ts and periodic review of 'disturbed area' status. In the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association case (2016) it held that immunity is not absolute, that every death in an encounter must be investigated, and that armed forces enjoy no blanket protection for excessive or retaliatory force.

Critical evaluation

The forces need enabling powers for counter-insurgency, but unaccountable use erodes legitimacy and alienates citizens. The Jeevan Reddy Committee recommended repeal and folding necessary powers into other law. A calibrated approach—time-bound, reviewable declarations, diluted immunity, and accountability for excesses—can reconcile security imperatives with constitutional rights.