THE REVIEW OF THE ARMED FORCES (SPECIAL POWERS) ACT, 1958 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO MANIPUR

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA), enacted to empower the Indian armed forces in "disturbed areas," has been a subject of intense debate, particularly in the northeastern state of Manipur. Originally introduced to suppress insurgency and maintain public order, AFSPA has faced criticism for alleged human rights violations and the lack of accountability for armed forces personnel. This paper aims to critically examine the historical context, implementation, legal framework, and socio-political implications of AFSPA in Manipur. Drawing on legislative analysis, judicial decisions, and reports from human rights organizations, the study explores how the prolonged imposition of AFSPA has shaped civil-military relations, governance, and the daily lives of Manipuri citizens. The paper discusses key legal provisions under AFSPA, particularly Sections 3 and 4, which grant sweeping powers to the armed forces, including the authority to shoot to kill, arrest without warrant, and search premises without prior consent. In Manipur, AFSPA has been enforced almost continuously since 1980, leading to widespread resentment and protests—most notably the 16-year hunger strike by activist Irom Sharmila. The Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005), the Supreme Court's guidelines in the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) v. Union of India case (2016), and the Justice Hegde report have all questioned the necessity and effectiveness of the Act in its current form. Despite calls for repeal or reform, successive governments have maintained AFSPA citing national security concerns and ongoing insurgent threats. The partial withdrawal of AFSPA from parts of Manipur in 2022 was seen as a step forward, yet large areas remain under its jurisdiction, particularly after the ethnic unrest of 2023. The paper argues that AFSPA, in its current form, undermines democratic accountability and civilian trust in the state, and recommends a balanced approach that ensures national security without compromising fundamental human rights.