Question 1

AFSPA can only be invoked by the Central Government.

Accepted Answer

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'.

Question 2

Armed forces personnel have absolute immunity from prosecution under AFSPA.

Accepted Answer

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.

Question 3

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?

Accepted Answer

(a) Only one — Statement 1 is correct; the 2005 Jeevan Reddy Committee recommended repealing AFSPA and moving provisions to UAPA. Statement 2 is incorrect; Section 3 empowers both the Central Government and the State Governor to declare an area 'disturbed'. Statement 3 is incorrect; the Supreme Court in the 2016 EEVFAM case ruled that there is NO absolute immunity and that fake encounters must be investigated.

Question 4

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

Accepted Answer

(a) A-3, B-1, C-4, D-2 — A matches with 3 (Jeevan Reddy Committee recommended repeal in 2005). B matches with 1 (EEVFAM case ruled against absolute immunity). C matches with 4 (2nd ARC headed by Veerappa Moily recommended repeal). D matches with 2 (Santosh Hegde Commission investigated extrajudicial killings in Manipur).

Question 5

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:

Accepted Answer

(c) A is true but R is false — Assertion (A) is true; Section 6 indeed mandates prior Central sanction for the prosecution of armed forces personnel. Reason (R) is false; the Supreme Court explicitly ruled in the 2016 EEVFAM case that there is no absolute blanket immunity and that instances of disproportionate force must be thoroughly investigated.

AFSPA Extended in Nagaland, Arunachal, and Manipur

Cabinet Approves Export Credit Guarantee Scheme