Human rights activists constantly highlight the view that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) is a draconian act leading to cases of human rights abuses by the security forces. What sections of AFSPA are opposed by the activists? Critically evaluate the requirement with reference to the view held by the Apex Court.

Introduction

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) was enacted to empower armed forces in "disturbed areas" to maintain public order. However, it has been criticized for enabling human rights violations due to its sweeping powers and lack of accountability. The Supreme Court of India, while upholding its constitutionality, has emphasized the need for safeguards to prevent misuse.

Key Provisions of AFSPA Opposed by Activists

• Section 3: Declares an area as "disturbed" without clear criteria, leaving it open to arbitrary application.
• Section 4(a): Grants armed forces the power to shoot to kill on mere suspicion, violating the right to life (Article 21).
• Section 4(c): Allows arrest without a warrant, leading to arbitrary detentions.
• Section 6: Provides immunity from prosecution for armed forces personnel without prior sanction from the Central Government, creating a culture of impunity.

Substantiation of Concerns

• Reports of Misuse: Cases like the Malom Massacre (2000) and Manorama Devi case (2004) in Manipur highlight alleged extrajudicial killings and sexual violence.
• UN Criticism: The UN Human Rights Council has repeatedly called for the repeal of AFSPA, citing violations of international human rights norms.

Requirement of AFSPA: A Critical Evaluation

Arguments Supporting AFSPA

• National Security: AFSPA is essential in combating insurgency and maintaining territorial integrity, especially in regions like Jammu & Kashmir and the Northeast.
• Operational Freedom: It provides armed forces with the necessary powers to act decisively in high-risk conflict zones.
• Judicial Backing: The Supreme Court in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1997) upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA, recognizing its necessity in disturbed areas.

Criticisms of AFSPA

• Human Rights Violations: The lack of accountability has led to extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances.
• Prolonged Use: AFSPA has been in force for decades in some regions, raising questions about its effectiveness in resolving conflicts.
• Alienation of Citizens: The act fosters mistrust between civilians and the state, exacerbating the grievances of marginalized communities.

Apex Court's View

• Checks and Balances: In the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) case (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that excessive use of force under AFSPA is not permissible and emphasized the need for accountability.
• Periodic Review: The Court has called for a periodic review of the "disturbed area" status to prevent its misuse.

Value Addition Block: AFSPA in Numbers

Way Forward

• Amendment of Provisions: Narrow the scope of Section 3 and Section 4 to ensure proportional use of force.
• Accountability Mechanisms: Repeal Section 6 immunity and establish independent oversight bodies.
• Developmental Approach: Address the root causes of insurgency through inclusive development and dialogue.
• Periodic Review: Mandate regular review of "disturbed area" status by an independent committee.

Conclusion

While AFSPA remains a critical tool for ensuring national security, its unregulated use undermines constitutional values and alienates citizens. A balanced approach, combining security imperatives with human rights safeguards, is essential to uphold the rule of law and foster trust in governance.