AFSPA Extended in Parts of Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh for Six Months from October 2026

Why in News

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued a notification on 29 September 2026 extending the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) in specified areas of three north-eastern states — Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh — for a period of six months, effective from 1 October 2026 to 31 March 2027. The extension follows a periodic review of the security situation in these states.

Background

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was originally enacted as an ordinance in 1942 by the British government to suppress the Quit India Movement. Independent India re-enacted it in 1958 to deal with rising insurgency in the North-East, beginning with the Naga rebellion. The Act was applied to Assam and Manipur in 1958, and subsequently extended to other north-eastern states as insurgencies spread.

The term "disturbed area" — a precondition for AFSPA's application — was originally defined by state governments under Section 3, but an amendment in 1972 transferred this power to the Central Government. The Act has remained controversial since its enactment due to concerns about its impact on civil liberties and human rights.

Current Developments

The MHA notification dated 29 September 2026 declares the following areas as "disturbed" and extends AFSPA with effect from 1 October 2026:

Manipur

AFSPA applies to the entire state of Manipur except areas under the jurisdiction of 13 police stations in five districts:

• Imphal West: Imphal, Lamphel, City, Singjamei, Patsoi, and Wangoi police stations
• Imphal East: Porompat, Heingang, and Irilbung police stations
• Thoubal: Thoubal police station
• Bishnupur: Bishnupur and Nambol police stations
• Kakching: Kakching police station

Nagaland

AFSPA is extended in nine complete districts: Dimapur, Niuland, Chumoukedima, Mon, Kiphire, Noklak, Phek, Peren, and Meluri, along with specified areas of Kohima, Mokokchung, Longleng, Wokha, and Zunheboto districts.

Arunachal Pradesh

AFSPA continues in Tirap, Changlang, and Longding districts (bordering Myanmar and Nagaland), and in areas under Namsai, Mahadevpur, and Chowkham police stations in Namsai district (bordering Assam).

Key Facts

• Legal Authority: Section 3 of AFSPA, 1958 — empowers the Central Government (or Governor of a state) to declare an area "disturbed."
• Special Powers under Section 4: Armed forces personnel may arrest without warrant, enter and search premises without warrant, use force (including lethal force) against persons acting in contravention of law, and destroy arms dumps or hideouts.
• Protection under Section 6: No prosecution, suit, or other legal proceeding may be instituted against any officer acting under the Act without prior sanction of the Central Government.
• AFSPA applies alongside ordinary criminal law — it does not suspend the Constitution.
• Home Minister Amit Shah has stated the government's goal to remove AFSPA from most of the Northeast by 2027, with possible exceptions for one or two states with ongoing insurgency.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 355: Union's duty to protect states from external aggression and internal disturbance — the constitutional basis for deploying armed forces in civilian areas.
• Article 246 read with Schedule 7, List I, Entry 1: Defence of India is a Union subject, giving Parliament authority to legislate AFSPA.
• Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty — the provision most directly in tension with AFSPA's lethal-force powers; the Supreme Court has held even in disturbed areas, the right to life cannot be extinguished arbitrarily.
• Article 22: Safeguards against arbitrary arrest — AFSPA creates an exception, triggering ongoing constitutional debate.
• Article 19(1)(d)–(e): Freedom of movement and residence — restricted in disturbed area notifications.

Legal Framework

• Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958: The parent statute. Key sections: Section 3 (declaration), Section 4 (powers), Section 5 (arrest and handover to civil police within 24 hours), Section 6 (prosecution sanction).
• Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990: A separate but analogous statute for J&K (not the same Act).

Supreme Court Judgments:

• Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India (1997): A 5-judge Constitution Bench upheld AFSPA's constitutionality, ruled that use of force must be "minimal," and directed the armed forces to observe human rights guidelines.
• Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) v. Union of India (2016): The Supreme Court held that armed forces personnel cannot claim absolute immunity under AFSPA for extrajudicial killings; such cases can be prosecuted, and each alleged fake encounter must be independently investigated regardless of whether it occurred in a disturbed area.

Institutional Framework

• Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA): Issues disturbed-area notifications and AFSPA extensions; oversees internal security policy.
• Ministry of Defence: Deploys Army under AFSPA; coordinates with MHA.
• State Governments: Can independently declare disturbed areas under Section 3 but require concurrence of the Central Government for deployment of armed forces under AFSPA.
• National Human Rights Commission (NHRC): Monitors human rights violations; can take suo motu cognizance but cannot investigate the armed forces directly (jurisdiction limited to paramilitary and police).

Economic Dimensions

Prolonged AFSPA status is associated with dampened private investment, disrupted tourism, and economic underdevelopment in the Northeast. The Act East Policy and connectivity infrastructure projects (such as the India–Myanmar–Thailand Trilateral Highway) depend on improved security conditions, making gradual withdrawal of AFSPA an economic imperative as well as a security one. The region remains one of the most under-industrialised in India despite being rich in natural resources.

Social Dimensions

Civil society groups, particularly women's organisations such as the Meira Paibis in Manipur, have long campaigned for AFSPA's repeal, citing instances of custodial deaths, sexual violence by security personnel, and the chilling effect on civilian life. The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) documented numerous complaints and recommended that AFSPA be repealed and replaced by a more humane and accountable legal framework.

Challenges

• Ongoing ethnic conflict in Manipur between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities continues to test law-enforcement capacity.
• Insurgent groups operating across the Myanmar border (United National Liberation Front, National Socialist Council of Nagaland factions) create sustained security demands.
• The 2016 SC ruling requires every alleged fake encounter to be investigated, but implementation remains inconsistent.
• Graduated withdrawal risks creating security vacuums if not coordinated with police capacity-building.

Government Initiatives

• Partial withdrawal of AFSPA since 2022 from several districts of Assam, Nagaland, and Manipur as peace processes advanced.
• Naga Peace Accord discussions (ongoing since 2015 framework agreement) — resolution would allow further AFSPA withdrawal from Nagaland.
• Modernisation of state police forces under the SMART Policing initiative to reduce dependence on armed forces for internal security.
• Aspirational Districts Programme addresses socio-economic underdevelopment that feeds insurgency.

Way Forward

• The Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) recommended replacing AFSPA with a new, narrowly-tailored law with built-in accountability mechanisms and sunset clauses.
• The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC) recommended strict guidelines on the use of lethal force and enhanced judicial oversight of AFSPA operations.
• The Sarkaria Commission and Punchhi Commission both stressed that Centre-State cooperation on internal security must be underpinned by constitutional safeguards and regular review mechanisms.
• Graduated, district-wise withdrawal linked to objective security benchmarks (crime rates, surrender rates, reduction in militant incidents) is considered the most viable approach.

Possible Mains Questions

1. "AFSPA is a blunt instrument that criminalises an entire population for the actions of a few militants." Critically evaluate this assertion in light of the Supreme Court's evolving jurisprudence and the government's stated policy of graduated withdrawal. (GS-III, 250 words)
2. Examine the constitutional tensions created by the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, particularly with reference to Articles 21 and 355. How has the Supreme Court attempted to balance national security with individual rights? (GS-II, 250 words)

Possible Prelims MCQs

1. Q. Under which Section of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, is an area declared "disturbed"?
   A. Section 3. (Section 4 grants special powers to armed forces; Section 6 protects personnel from prosecution without central sanction.)
2. Q. Which Supreme Court judgment held that the AFSPA does not grant absolute immunity to armed forces personnel for alleged extrajudicial killings?
   A. EEVFAM v. Union of India (2016).
3. Q. Which committee recommended the repeal of AFSPA in 2005?
   A. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee.

Essay Dimensions

1. Security versus civil liberties: the permanent tension in counter-insurgency law
2. The Northeast as a post-colonial wound: does AFSPA address causes or symptoms of insurgency?
3. Federalism and the limits of central power in internal security: lessons from the Northeast
4. Human rights accountability and the rule of law in areas under AFSPA
5. Can development substitute security legislation? Examining the economic roots of insurgency

Interview Questions

1. You are serving as an IPS officer in a district where AFSPA is in force. How would you ensure the rights of civilians are protected while maintaining operational effectiveness?
2. What are the constitutional safeguards that still operate in an AFSPA-declared disturbed area?
3. India's Act East Policy requires closer economic integration with Southeast Asia through the Northeast. How does the security situation under AFSPA affect this goal?
4. Should the power to declare a disturbed area vest with the state government, the central government, or a judicial body? Justify your position.
5. Compare AFSPA with counter-terrorism laws in other democracies. Are there better models?

FAQ

What is the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958?

AFSPA is a central law that grants special powers to the armed forces (Army, Air Force, and paramilitary) in areas declared "disturbed." It allows personnel to arrest without warrant, use lethal force, and search premises — with legal protection from prosecution without prior central government sanction.

What areas are currently under AFSPA in 2026?

As of 1 October 2026, AFSPA applies to most of Manipur (except 13 urban police stations), nine districts of Nagaland, and three districts plus parts of Namsai in Arunachal Pradesh. Assam was largely removed from AFSPA coverage in 2022.

Can armed forces personnel be prosecuted for acts done under AFSPA?

Yes. The Supreme Court in EEVFAM v. Union of India (2016) held that prior sanction under Section 6 is required but cannot be used to shield genuine excesses or extrajudicial killings; every complaint must be independently investigated.

Further Reading

• Ministry of Home Affairs — official notifications
• Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 — full text (India Kanoon)
• Supreme Court of India — EEVFAM judgment (2016)