UPSC Mains Answer: Human rights activists constantly highlight the view that the Armed Forces 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 to

Difficulty Level: Hard

Sub-category: Indian Polity and Governance (Security and Human Rights)

Introduction

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA), enacted to empower security forces in disturbed areas, has been a subject of intense debate due to allegations of human rights violations. Human rights activists argue that certain provisions of AFSPA grant impunity to armed forces, leading to abuses such as extrajudicial killings, torture, and arbitrary detentions.

Body

Opposed Sections

"Activists primarily oppose the following sections of AFSPA: (1) Section 4(a): Grants armed forces the power to use lethal force, even causing death, if deemed necessary for maintenance of public order. (2) Section 4(c): Allows destruction of shelters or structures suspected of harboring militants or arms. (3) Section 6: Provides immunity to security personnel from prosecution without prior sanction from the central government, effectively shielding them from accountability.", Critical Evaluation: "The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment (Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association vs. Union of India, 2016), upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA but imposed safeguards. The Court ruled that every encounter death must be probed, and armed forces cannot claim blanket immunity. It emphasized that AFSPA does not confer license to kill and that human rights must be balanced with national security. While AFSPA is necessary in insurgency-hit regions to maintain law and order, its misuse has eroded public trust. The Court’s stance reflects a nuanced approach, acknowledging the need for security while ensuring accountability.", Requirement of AFSPA: Proponents argue that AFSPA is indispensable in conflict zones like Jammu & Kashmir and the Northeast, where insurgency and terrorism threaten national integrity. However, critics contend that prolonged application of AFSPA normalizes militarization, alienates local populations, and violates fundamental rights. The Apex Court’s intervention underscores the need for periodic review, stricter oversight, and mechanisms to prevent abuse while retaining the Act’s operational efficacy.

Conclusion

AFSPA remains a double-edged sword—essential for counterinsurgency yet contentious for its human rights implications. The Supreme Court’s rulings have attempted to strike a balance, but legislative reforms, such as incorporating judicial oversight and time-bound reviews, are imperative to align AFSPA with democratic principles and constitutional values.