AFSPA: A Pledge Unfulfilled
In June 2026, Home Minister Amit Shah reiterated a familiar vow to withdraw the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) from the North East, sparing only one or two states. This promise echoes similar declarations made in 2020, 2022, and 2023, yet the Act remains. Officials from the Home Ministry have consistently clarified that their focus is on reducing the ‘disturbed area’ notifications, not repealing the Act itself. This distinction is far from bureaucratic; it is grounded in constitutional law. The persistence of AFSPA is not driven by necessity but by its utility to the government.
The Origins of AFSPA
AFSPA, originally enacted in 1958, traces its roots to the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance of 1942, used by the British to suppress the Quit India Movement. Post-independence, India adopted AFSPA to address insurgencies, particularly Naga separatism, in the North East. Its purpose was clear: a temporary, emergency measure activated when civil governance failed. Section 3 of the Act enables the declaration of ‘disturbed areas’ when the use of armed forces is deemed necessary to support civil power, implying a high threshold for deployment.
From Temporary Measure to Permanent Fixture
Over the decades, AFSPA has transitioned from a temporary solution to a permanent framework. By 2026, it will have been in effect in the North Eastern states for 68 years. While the government cites ongoing insurgency, the reality includes poverty, marginalization, and historical grievances. AFSPA addresses symptoms via armed intervention, neglecting root causes.
The government’s logic falters with perpetual reimposition, as seen in Manipur in 2024. This reveals AFSPA’s failure to resolve underlying conflicts, underscoring the need for development, dialogue, and political solutions.
Constitutional Concerns and Impunity
AFSPA’s evolution has transformed it from an emergency law into a tool for immunity. Section 6 protects those acting under the Act from prosecution without prior Central Government sanction. Originally intended to prevent false accusations against the Army, it has become an absolute shield. In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India that investigations into alleged encounter deaths in Manipur must proceed, despite Central Government delays in prosecution sanction.
Promises and Realities
The promise of AFSPA’s removal from the North East, except for select states, does not restore the rule of law. Instead, it perpetuates a two-tier citizenship system where certain citizens live under conditions of unaccountability. The reimposition of AFSPA in Manipur in November 2024, following ethnic violence, underscores its role as a systemic feature rather than an exception.
Systematic Issues and Legal Opinions
The Justice Santosh Hegde Committee, established by the Supreme Court in 2013, investigated encounter deaths in Manipur, finding most encounters to be unjustified. The Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association documented 1,528 alleged killings in Manipur between 2000 and 2012, yet prosecutions remain stalled due to Section 6.
The case of Thangjam Manorama Devi, killed in 2004, spotlighted AFSPA’s impunity, sparking protests and the creation of the Jeevan Reddy Committee, which recommended repealing the Act. However, accountability remains elusive.
The Path Forward
Selective removal of AFSPA perpetuates unequal constitutional protections. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, yet AFSPA creates geographic disparities in constitutional rights.
Every major review of AFSPA, including those by the Jeevan Reddy Committee, Administrative Reforms Commission, and Justice Hegde Committee, has deemed it incompatible with constitutional governance. Yet, the government continues to delay or ignore recommendations.
The solution lies in complete statutory repeal. The government should repeal AFSPA by December 2027, replacing it with legislation that allows temporary, conditional deployment with parliamentary oversight and accountability measures. A commission should investigate AFSPA-related violations, and pending cases should proceed to prosecution.
These measures are not radical; they are essential for accountability and upholding the rule of law.
Vinay Kumar is an Assistant Professor of Law at Manipal University Jaipur. Deepshikha Trivedi is a Research Scholar at the University of Delhi.
