AFSPA extended in parts of Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh

The brief in 6 cards

1. Context1 / 6

   For six months from 1 October 2026, unless withdrawn earlier, the Centre has continued the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) in specified areas after reviewing the security situation.

   Manipur: Most of the State is covered. Areas under 13 police stations in five valley districts are excluded.

   Nagaland: Nine entire districts and areas under 21 police stations in five other districts are covered.

   Arunachal Pradesh: Tirap, Changlang and Longding districts are covered, along with the Namsai, Mahadevpur and Chowkham police-station areas of Namsai district.

   The area boundaries matter. AFSPA's special powers apply only where a valid “disturbed area” declaration is in force.

2. Key highlights2 / 6

   The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 gives armed forces defined powers in an area formally declared disturbed.

   Section 3 — declaration: The Central Government, a State Governor or a Union Territory Administrator may declare all or part of a State or Union Territory disturbed if conditions are serious enough to require armed forces in aid of civil power.

   Section 4 — powers: Subject to the Act's conditions, authorised personnel may use force, including force causing death in specified circumstances after due warning. They may arrest without a warrant, enter and search without a warrant, and destroy specified arms dumps, fortified positions or shelters used for armed attacks.

   Section 5 — handover: A person arrested must be handed over to the nearest police station with the least possible delay.

   Section 6 — prosecution: Previous Central Government sanction is required for prosecution or other legal proceedings for an act done or purported to be done under AFSPA.

3. Key concepts3 / 6

   What has the Supreme Court said?

   In Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1997), the Court upheld AFSPA's constitutional validity but required safeguards. A disturbed-area declaration should be reviewed before six months pass. Armed forces assist the civilian administration; they do not replace it. The Court also said consultation with the State is desirable when the Centre declares an area disturbed.

   In EEVFAM v. Union of India (2016), a case concerning alleged unlawful killings in Manipur, the Court held that excessive or retaliatory force is impermissible. Deaths involving allegations of such force require proper investigation.

   The simple principle is that extraordinary legal powers remain subject to limits and review.

4. Way forward4 / 6

   Why is AFSPA debated?

   Security: Supporters argue that serious insurgency or persistent violence can overwhelm ordinary policing. The Act is intended to let armed forces assist the civil administration in such conditions.

   Rights and accountability: Critics raise concerns about excessive force, repeated extensions, the prosecution-sanction requirement and the risk of alienating local communities.

   The Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee recommended repealing AFSPA and placing needed provisions in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Second Administrative Reforms Commission also recommended repeal. The Justice Verma Committee called for review of AFSPA's continuance in conflict areas and removal of prosecution-sanction protection for alleged sexual offences by armed-forces personnel.

   An answer should assess whether security operations remain effective while force stays proportionate, allegations are investigated and civilian institutions retain authority.

5. Note5 / 6

   A way forward

   Review each covered area against measurable security conditions before a declaration is renewed. As violence falls, strengthen State police and civilian administration so they can resume normal law-and-order work.

   Investigate allegations of excessive force promptly and independently, following the Supreme Court's safeguards. Centre–State consultation can improve cooperation and local trust. Withdraw AFSPA gradually from areas where security conditions allow.

   Better security → stronger civilian institutions → a smaller AFSPA footprint. The law's use should be judged by the need for it, periodic review, proportionate force and accountability.

6. Note6 / 6

   Additional PSIR practice — Paper I, Section B; 15 marks: Discuss AFSPA through Indian federalism, civil liberties and the Union's role in internal security.

Swipe or use ← → to move between cards.