The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, (AFSPA) has been a cornerstone of India’s internal security framework since its enactment in 1958. Designed to empower the military in regions labelled as “disturbed areas”,  AFSPA grants extensive authority to armed forces, including the right to arrest without warrant and the use of lethal force under certain conditions. While intended to maintain public order and combat insurgency, the Act has been a focal point of intense debate, with critics highlighting its potential for human rights violations and proponents emphasizing its necessity for national security.

Historical Context and Provisions
AFSPA was introduced to address escalating insurgencies in India's northeastern states. The Act’s provisions allow armed forces personnel to:
 Use force, including lethal means, against individuals violating laws prohibiting assemblies of five or more people or carrying weapons.
 Arrest individuals without a warrant on the basis of reasonable suspicion of committing or intending to commit a cognizable offense.
 Enter and search premises without a warrant to make arrests or recover hostages, weapons, or explosives.
 Destroy arms dumps, hideouts, or shelters used by insurgents.
These powers are applicable in areas declared as “disturbed” by the central or state government, a designation meant to be temporary but often extended for prolonged periods.

Criticism and Human Rights Concerns
AFSPA has faced significant criticism from human rights organizations, activists, and affected communities. Key concerns include:
 Arbitrary Detention and Arrests: The Act permits arrests without warrants based on mere suspicion, which critics argue contravenes fundamental rights against arbitrary detention.

 Excessive Use of Force: The provision allowing the use of lethal force has led to allegations of extrajudicial killings and excessive use of force by security personnel.
 Immunity from Prosecution: Section 7 of AFSPA grants security personnel immunity from legal proceedings without prior sanction from the central government. This has resulted in a lack of accountability for alleged human rights abuses, as permissions for prosecution are often denied or delayed.
 Impact on Civil Liberties: The Act's broad powers have been criticized for undermining civil liberties, leading to a climate of fear and oppression in affected regions.

Notable Incidents and Protests
Several incidents have intensified the call for AFSPA's repeal or amendment:
 Malom Massacre (2000): The killing of ten civilians by security forces in Manipur led to widespread protests and the 16-year hunger strike by activist Irom Sharmila, demanding the repeal of AFSPA.
 Nagaland Ambush (2021): The killing of civilians in a botched army operation reignited debates over AFSPA’s application and its human rights implications.

Government and Judicial Responses
The Indian government has periodically reviewed AFSPA’s application:
 Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005): This committee recommended the repeal of AFSPA, suggesting that its provisions be incorporated into existing laws to balance security and human rights. However, the recommendations were not implemented.
 Supreme Court Rulings: The Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA but emphasized the need for adherence to guidelines to prevent misuse. In 2016, the Court ruled that armed forces personnel should not enjoy blanket immunity and that allegations of excesses should be thoroughly investigated.

Recent Developments
In recent years, there have been moves to reduce AFSPA’s footprint: Northeastern States: In 2022, the Indian government announced the reduction of “disturbed areas”, under AFSPA in Assam, Manipur, and Nagaland, citing improved security situations. However, the Act remains in force in certain regions, and human rights groups continue to advocate for its complete repeal.

Balancing Security and Human Rights
 The debate over AFSPA encapsulates the challenge of balancing national security with the protection of human rights. Proponents argue that the Act is essential for empowering armed forces to effectively combat insurgency and maintain public order in volatile regions. They contend that insurgent groups are often well-trained and funded, necessitating robust legal frameworks to address the threats they pose.
 Critics, however, assert that AFSPA’s broad provisions and the immunity it grants have led to systemic human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, and sexual violence. They argue that the lack of accountability fosters a culture of impunity among security forces, exacerbating tensions between the state and local populations.

Conclusion
AFSPA remains one of India’s most contentious laws, symbolizing the complex interplay between ensuring national security and upholding human rights. While the Act has been instrumental in addressing insurgencies, its implementation has raised serious human rights
concerns that cannot be overlooked. A nuanced approach, involving legal reforms, greater transparency, and accountability mechanisms, is essential to address the legitimate security needs of the state while safeguarding the fundamental rights of its citizens. Engaging in an
open and informed debate on AFSPA’s future is crucial for India’s democratic ethos and its commitment to human rights.

This article is authored by Akshdeep Kaur, who was among Top 40 performers in the Contract Drafting Quiz competition organized by Lets Learn Law.