The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) gives special powers to the armed forces in areas declared “disturbed” under Section 3 of the Act. These powers include search, arrest and use of force, including firing, under Section 4. AFSPA is still operational in parts of the North-Eastern Region, especially in Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, as reflected in the latest Ministry of Home Affairs notifications dated 23 March 2026.
AFSPA was enacted to help the armed forces deal with insurgency, secessionist violence and threats to national security. In the North-East, it has been used in difficult conflict zones where normal policing often becomes inadequate.
Arguments in favour of AFSPA:
- Security in insurgency-hit areas: AFSPA gives operational flexibility to security forces in areas affected by armed groups and cross-border linkages.
- Protection of sovereignty: It helps the State respond to threats against territorial integrity, especially in sensitive border regions.
- Support to civil administration: The Army operates in aid of civil power when police forces alone cannot control violence.
- Improved security situation: The gradual withdrawal of AFSPA from several areas shows that it can be reduced when peace improves. For example, AFSPA has been removed from many parts of Assam and other North-Eastern states over the years.
However, critics call AFSPA a “draconian Act” because it gives wide powers with limited accountability. Human rights groups argue that such powers may lead to misuse, fear and alienation among citizens.
Major criticisms of AFSPA:
- Violation of civil liberties: Powers of arrest, search and firing may affect the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
- Immunity concern: Section 6 requires prior sanction of the Central Government for prosecution, which critics say creates a culture of impunity.
- Alienation of local people: Long-term military presence may weaken trust between citizens and the State.
- Misuse allegations: Incidents such as the Oting firing in Nagaland in 2021 strengthened demands for repeal.
- Federal concern: States often demand greater say before extension of “disturbed area” status.
The Supreme Court has tried to balance security and rights. In Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1997), the Court upheld AFSPA but laid down safeguards. Later, in Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India (2016), the Court held that even in disturbed areas, the use of excessive force must face legal scrutiny.
Various committees have also recommended reform. The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) recommended repealing AFSPA and incorporating necessary provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission also favoured review and greater accountability.
Way forward:
- Review “disturbed area” status every six months with transparent criteria.
- Strengthen police capacity and local intelligence.
- Ensure time-bound inquiry into alleged excesses.
- Use AFSPA only as a temporary and exceptional measure.
- Combine security operations with peace talks, development and trust-building.
Conclusion
AFSPA may be necessary in exceptional security situations, but its prolonged use raises serious democratic and human rights concerns. Therefore, India must follow a balanced approach. India must protect national security, but also uphold constitutional morality, human dignity and accountability. In the North-East, the goal should be gradual withdrawal of AFSPA through peace, development and stronger civil policing.
