A law from 1958 still shapes daily life across parts of India’s Northeast. It gives soldiers powers no ordinary police officer has. This article covers AFSPA, and where it still applies today.
Timeline
- 22 May 1958: An ordinance giving armed forces special powers in Assam and Manipur comes into force.
- 11 September 1958: Parliament passes the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958.
- 27 November 1997: The Supreme Court upholds AFSPA’s constitutional validity in Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India.
- 2026: AFSPA remains extended across most of Manipur, parts of Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, while being progressively withdrawn from parts of Assam.
Must Know
- The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 gives the armed forces special powers in areas declared “disturbed.”
- These powers include the ability to arrest without a warrant, enter and search premises, and use force — including firing — against anyone acting against law and order.
- On 27 November 1997, the Supreme Court upheld AFSPA’s constitutional validity, in Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India.
- As of 2026, AFSPA remains in force across most of Manipur, and parts of Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.
Good to Know
- In Assam, the Home Ministry has been progressively withdrawing AFSPA district by district. It was recently lifted from Dibrugarh, leaving three districts still covered: Tinsukia, Sivasagar, and Charaideo.
- Following the 2004 death of Thangjam Manorama Devi in custody in Manipur, the government set up a review committee, which recommended repealing the Act in its June 2005 report.
- In current renewals, AFSPA applies to entire Manipur except for 13 police station areas, based on ongoing security assessments.
- The Act’s extensions are typically renewed every six months, requiring the government to reassess “disturbed area” status regularly.
Test Yourself
Great to Know
- AFSPA sits at the centre of a long-running debate: security forces argue it’s essential for operating in active insurgency zones, while critics argue its immunity provisions enable impunity for abuses.
- The gradual, district-by-district withdrawal pattern — rather than a single national repeal — reflects how “disturbed area” status is assessed locally, tied to the specific security situation in each district.
- The 1997 Supreme Court verdict didn’t just uphold the Act; it also read in procedural safeguards, like requiring forces to hand over arrested persons to police “with the least possible delay.”
- AFSPA shows how a law framed as a temporary, area-specific emergency measure can remain in force for over six decades, even as its territorial reach keeps shifting.
Leave a Reply