Defence & SecurityPriority2026-03-23

AFSPA Extended in Nagaland, Arunachal, and Manipur

Why focus: AFSPA extension in NE — core GS2/GS3 overlap, tests statutory provisions of 'disturbed area' declaration & Ministry of Home Affairs powers.

In News

What Happened

The Ministry of Home Affairs issued a gazette notification extending the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, for another six months in parts of Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur, effective April 1, 2026. In Manipur, the entire state remains a 'disturbed area' except for 13 police stations in the valley districts. In Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland, the extension is restricted to specific insurgency-affected districts and police station jurisdictions bordering Assam and Myanmar.

Why It Matters

This extension highlights the ongoing internal security challenges and ethnic conflicts in India's Northeast, particularly the protracted violence in Manipur. It also sustains the debate on human rights, state autonomy, and the necessity of extraordinary military powers in democratic governance.

Background

History & Context

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was enacted in 1958 to quell insurgencies in the Northeast. Over the decades, its application has sparked intense human rights debates, notably marked by Irom Sharmila's 16-year hunger strike. In 2004, the Central Government appointed the Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee, which submitted its report in 2005 recommending the complete repeal of AFSPA and the incorporation of its essential provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (headed by Veerappa Moily) echoed this recommendation in its 5th report. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's landmark 2016 judgment in the EEVFAM case mandated inquiries into extrajudicial killings, ruling that military personnel do not possess absolute immunity. Despite these high-level recommendations, successive governments have retained the law citing national security and cross-border militant threats.

What Changed

▶
Notification Authority: BEFORE: State governments typically notified 'disturbed areas' for local law and order. NOW: The Ministry of Home Affairs (Centre) increasingly assumes the role of issuing the Section 3 notification, as seen in the recent Manipur extensions.
▶
Manipur Exclusions: BEFORE: In early 2023, AFSPA was lifted from 19 police stations in the Imphal Valley due to improved peace. NOW: Due to protracted ethnic violence, the exclusion zone shrank back to 13 police stations, returning areas like Jiribam under military jurisdiction.
▶
Arunachal Pradesh Footprint: BEFORE: The Act previously covered larger swathes of the state. NOW: It is strictly confined to the Tirap, Changlang, and Longding (TCL) districts and specific police stations in Namsai bordering Assam.
▶
Nagaland Footprint: BEFORE: The entire state was classified as a disturbed area for decades. NOW: The notification is highly granular, targeting 8 specific districts and only 21 police stations across 5 other districts.
▶
Review Cycle Rigidity: BEFORE: Extensions were often routine and indefinite. NOW: Following the 1997 Supreme Court ruling in the Naga People's Movement of Human Rights case, the status must strictly be reviewed and gazetted every six months, establishing a biannual April-October rhythm.

What Did NOT Change

Despite the recommendations of the Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) and the Second Administrative Reforms Commission to repeal AFSPA, the core framework of the Act remains intact. Section 4, granting the power to use lethal force and arrest without a warrant, and Section 6, providing immunity from prosecution without prior Central sanction, were not altered or diluted.

Prelims Angle

NCERT Connection

This event directly connects to Class 11 Political Science Chapter 2 - 'Rights in the Indian Constitution'. The chapter discusses Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) and the constitutional balancing of Fundamental Rights against national security. The application of AFSPA illustrates the real-world implications of Article 33 and Article 34, which empower Parliament to restrict fundamental rights for armed forces and during periods of martial law or significant disturbance.

Common Misconceptions

✗ AFSPA can only be invoked by the Central Government.

✓ Under Section 3 of the Act, both the Central Government and the Governor of the State possess concurrent powers to declare an area as 'disturbed'.

Recent high-profile extensions in Manipur and Nagaland have been gazetted directly by the Ministry of Home Affairs, overshadowing the state authorities' constitutional powers.

✗ Armed forces personnel have absolute immunity from prosecution under AFSPA.

✓ In the 2016 EEVFAM vs Union of India case, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no absolute immunity for extrajudicial killings, and every death caused by the armed forces requires a thorough inquiry.

Section 6 of AFSPA requires prior Central Government sanction for prosecution, which is rarely granted, creating a public perception of absolute legal immunity.

Practice Questions

Q1

How Many Correct

Consider the following statements regarding the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958: 1. The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee recommended the complete repeal of AFSPA and the insertion of its essential provisions into the UAPA. 2. Under Section 3 of AFSPA, only the Ministry of Home Affairs has the authority to declare an area as a 'disturbed area'. 3. The Supreme Court, in the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) case, ruled that armed forces personnel cannot be investigated for actions taken under AFSPA. How many of the above statements are correct?

Q2

Match the Following

Match List I (Committees / Judgments) with List II (Key Associations related to AFSPA) and select the correct answer using the code given below: List I: A. Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee B. EEVFAM vs Union of India (2016) C. Second Administrative Reforms Commission D. Justice Santosh Hegde Commission List II: 1. Ruled against absolute immunity for armed forces personnel 2. Investigated cases of extrajudicial killings in Manipur 3. Recommended repeal of AFSPA in 2005 4. Headed by Veerappa Moily, echoed the call for AFSPA repeal

Q3

Assertion & Reason

Assertion (A): Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 requires prior sanction from the Central Government to prosecute armed forces personnel. Reason (R): The Supreme Court has declared that armed forces operating in disturbed areas enjoy absolute immunity to effectively maintain public order without fear of legal reprisal. Select the correct answer:

Up next