The central government of India has extended the designation of Nagaland as a ‘disturbed area’ for a further six months, up until June 2019. The declaration was made under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958. The Ministry of Home Affairs backed this decision by stating that the State of Nagaland is currently in a precarious condition, requiring security aid from the armed forces due to extensive criminal activities such as killings, looting, and extortion.
The Significance of AFSPA, 1958
Introduced in 1958, the AFSPA aimed to control what was regarded as ‘disturbed areas’ by the government. The act has a counterpart specific to Jammu & Kashmir titled ‘Armed Forces (Jammu & Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990’. Currently, it’s effective in Nagaland, Assam, Manipur (excluding seven assembly constituencies of Imphal), and parts of Arunachal Pradesh. However, Meghalaya’s AFSPA status was revoked on April 1, 2018.
The Act permits a state’s Governor/Administrator to announce an area as ‘disturbed’. This label must then be maintained for a minimum of three months according to the Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976. The Act can be invoked in places where it’s necessary to use the armed forces to assist civil power.
Powers and Immunities under AFSPA
The AFSPA provides the army and central forces deployed in ‘disturbed areas’ significant liberties including warrantless searches and arrests, and the ability to use force even to causing death. Furthermore, it ensures immunity for security forces carrying out operations and protects them from prosecution and legal suits without the Centre’s approval.
A system to limit any misuse of these powers is in place, involving a review of the ‘disturbed area’ status every six months.
Debate and Controversy Surrounding AFSPA
The Act has sparked controversy due to the extensive powers assigned to the armed forces and alleged human rights violations. There’s ongoing debate about the constitutionality of AFSPA as law and order are state subjects.
| Year | Event | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1998 | Supreme Court’s Judgement | The Supreme Court validated the constitutionality of AFSPA (Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India). |
| 2004 | Jeevan Reddy Committee | The Central government appointed a five-member committee led by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy to review AFSPA in the northeastern states. |
| 2007 | Second ARC Recommendation | The Second Administrative Reforms Commission suggested repealing the AFSPA. |
The Legal Stand on AFSPA
In a pivotal judgement in 1998, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA, with specific conditions such as consulting with the state government before declaring an area as disturbed, maintaining this status for limited duration with a periodic review every six months, and an authoritative officer exercising minimal force.
Recommendations Regarding AFSPA
The Jeevan Reddy Committee (2004) suggested revoking AFSPA and integrating appropriate regulations into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The committee also recommended clearly defining the power of armed forces and establishing grievance cells in each district where these forces are stationed. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission likewise proposed the repeal of AFSPA. These recommendations, however, remain unimplemented.