AFSPA extended in Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh: What does the law mean? | Explained

The extension of AFSPA brings into sharp focus the constitutional framework surrounding internal security and federalism. Under Section 3 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, both the Central Government and the State Governor have concurrent powers to declare an area 'disturbed,' thereby invoking the Act. Historically, the Centre allowed state governments, like Manipur, to issue these periodic notifications. However, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs taking over this role post-2023 violence illustrates a shift towards greater central control over security assessments in crisis zones. This dynamic touches upon the Union-State relations delineated in the Seventh Schedule, where 'Public Order' and 'Police' are State subjects (List II), but the 'Deployment of armed forces in aid of civil power' falls under the Union list (List I). The disagreement between the Manipur state cabinet and the MHA over the November 2024 notification provides a compelling case study on the friction points in cooperative federalism when managing complex security crises.

From an internal security perspective, AFSPA is a critical, albeit highly controversial, tool for counter-insurgency operations. The Act grants sweeping powers to armed forces deployed in 'disturbed areas,' including the authority to use lethal force against individuals violating prohibitory orders, and to arrest and search premises without warrants. Crucially, it provides personnel with immunity from prosecution without the prior sanction of the Central Government. The geographical application of AFSPA acts as a barometer for the security situation in the Northeast. The progressive rollback of the Act in states like Assam, Meghalaya, and Tripura over the past decade indicated a significant improvement in the security landscape, driven by peace accords and the decline of militant groups. However, the recent reimposition and extension in parts of Manipur directly correlate with the deterioration of law and order following the May 2023 ethnic clashes, underscoring how deeply entrenched ethnic divides can swiftly undo years of stabilization efforts. Furthermore, the continuation of the Act in Nagaland and specific districts of Arunachal Pradesh highlights the persistent challenge posed by active insurgent factions and the lack of a final resolution to the Naga peace process.

The application of AFSPA raises fundamental governance issues regarding human rights, accountability, and the balance between state security and individual liberties. The extraordinary powers granted by the Act have frequently drawn criticism from civil society organizations and international human rights bodies, who argue that it fosters a culture of impunity and leads to extrajudicial killings and other abuses. The requirement for central sanction before prosecuting personnel is seen as a significant barrier to justice, hindering accountability for alleged human rights violations. This tension was central to the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) vs. Union of India (2016), which ruled that every death caused by armed forces in a disturbed area must be thoroughly investigated, regardless of the victim's identity, thereby challenging the blanket immunity perceived under AFSPA. From a governance standpoint, the long-term reliance on military intervention to maintain public order points to deeper systemic failures in civil administration and policing. Effective governance requires transitioning from a militarized approach to resolving the underlying socio-economic and political grievances driving insurgency, fostering inclusive development, and strengthening local democratic institutions.