AFSPA became a law on September 11, 1958.

Initially, it was applicable to the seven

Northeastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland
and Tripura. This was so because in all these states there were movements of ethnic groups
demanding separation from India. The government felt that such insurgencies could be
checked through deployment of the armed forces, and they would need special powers to
carry out their responsibilities. AFSPA was extended to J&K in 1990, on similar
considerations.

Extraordinary powers given to the armed forces in the AFSPA

According to section 3 of the Act, any state government or governor or the central
government can declare the whole or part of a state disturbed if it is convinced that conditions
have become so disturbed or dangerous in the specified area that it’s necessary to deploy the
armed forces there. In the original Act, only the state government could do so, but in an
amendment done in 1972, the central government too was empowered to declare any area or
a state disturbed.
Section 4 of the Act defines the special powers that armed forces deployed in disturbed areas
enjoy.
- Part (a) says that any officer can fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of
death on any person, if the officer thinks that the person is violating the law.
- Part (b) says that any officer can destroy structures from which armed attacks are being
made or even likely to be made or where armed gangs or absconders may be hiding.
- Part (c) gives the officer powers to arrest without warrant any person who has committed a
cognizable offence or about whom there is reasonable suspicion.
- Part (d) authorizes officers to enter any premises to arrest a suspect and seize any material
that they think may be stolen.
In both (c) and (d), the officer is free to use whatever force is necessary. The officers acting
under AFSPA are given complete immunity from any legal proceeding by section 6 of Act.

What is the AFSPA being criticised for?

In the North East States and in J&K, locals have opposed the Act alleging that it has been
grossly misused by the armed forces that innocent people are being harassed and arrested.
The Act has been active in the Indian administrated state of Jammu and Kashmir since 1990.
It came under the scanner following three-month long violence in the state since July 2010.

The Act has invited national and international condemnation as it violates the human rights
standards.

http://weeklygk.blogspot.com/
All Rights Reserved | Unauthorized Reproduction is Prohibited
In 1991, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) questioned India on the
validity of the AFSPA.

Besides questioning the constitutionality of the AFSPA under Indian law, the committee
members asked how it could be justified in light of Article 4 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The second UN protest against AFSPA came in 2009 when UN Commissioner for Human
Rights Navanethem Pillay in 2009 asked India to repeal AFSPA, citing that the Act breached
"contemporary international human rights standards".

An international non-governmental organization, Human Rights Watch criticized AFSPA as

a "tool of state abuse, oppression and discrimination", while the South Asian Human Rights
Documentation Centre contended that the use of increased forces in troubled areas escalated
the tension.
A report by the institute for Defence Studies and Analysis establishes that the Act has
"resulted in large-scale violation of the citizens under Articles 14, 19, 21, 22, and 25 of the
Constitution" by pointing out the multiple occurrences of violence by security forces against
civilians in Manipur since the passage of the Act.

The employment of the Act in Jammu Kashmir has also invited criticism from Amnesty
International as well as the Human Rights Watch (HRW) over the several cases of human
rights abuses in the valley.

What other Indian laws give excessive powers to law enforcement agencies?
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act
(COFEPOSA), 1974, and National Security Act (NSA), 1980, both have such provisions.
Other laws like Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA) too curb fundamental rights in
the name of national security or public service.

Past Withdrawals
Despite opposition from the Central government, Manipur government withdrew the Act in
some parts in Aug 2004. Noting that the grievances of the Manipuri people were "legitimate"
, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had in Dec 2006 promised that the Act would be amended
to ensure it was 'humane'.

http://weeklygk.blogspot.com/
All Rights Reserved | Unauthorized Reproduction is Prohibited