From the brutal Nagaland civilian killings in 2021 to the Manipur unrest in 2023, AFSPA continues to be a contentious legislation balancing national security with human rights concerns.

Controversial Sections of AFSPA Opposed by Activists

• Section 4(a): Grants power to use force, including lethal force, against suspects violating law in disturbed areas without adequate safeguards
• Section 4(c): Permits arrest without warrant and entry/search of premises without warrant, violating due process
• Section 6: Provides blanket immunity from prosecution without central government's sanction, creating impunity
• Section 3: Enables declaration of areas as "disturbed" without clear parameters or time limits
• Section 7: Protects actions taken in "good faith" even if they violate fundamental rights

Supreme Court's Judicial Perspective

Constitutional Validity

• Naga People's Movement case (1998): Court upheld AFSPA's constitutionality but emphasized proportionality principle
• EEVFAM v. Union of India (2016): Mandated investigation of alleged fake encounters in Manipur
• Established that Article 21 (Right to Life) cannot be suspended even in disturbed areas
• Required adherence to army's "Ten Commandments" for counter-insurgency operations

Court-Mandated Safeguards

• Regular six-monthly review of "disturbed area" status
• Use of minimum force necessary for maintaining public order
• Investigation by independent agencies for human rights violations
• Compensation for victims of excessive force

Critical Evaluation of AFSPA's Requirement

Security Imperatives

• Counter-insurgency operations: Essential for combating armed rebellion in Northeast and J&K
• Border security: Prevents cross-border terrorism and infiltration attempts
• Strategic infrastructure protection: Safeguards critical installations and communication networks
• Rapid response capability: Enables swift action against security threats

Human Rights Concerns

• Extrajudicial killings: Over 1,500 fake encounters documented in Manipur alone (EEVFAM petition)
• Arbitrary detention: Prolonged custody without judicial oversight violating Article 22
• Sexual violence: Documented cases like Thangjam Manorama case (2004) highlighting abuse of power
• Psychological impact: Creates atmosphere of fear affecting civilian life and democratic participation

Way Forward Based on Apex Court Guidelines

The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) recommendations, endorsed by Supreme Court observations, suggest incorporating accountability mechanisms while maintaining operational effectiveness through better oversight, time-bound operations, and constitutional compliance.